Please 

handle  this  volume 

with  care. 

The  University  of  Connecticut 
Libraries,  Storrs 


hbl,  stx 


E       210.B18  1928 
iffi (Wife!.  fitSNUSfL the  America 


3    T1S3    DDbESSSM    3 


M 

ro 

i—1 
o 

td 
i— ' 
00 


oo 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

LYRASIS  members  and  Sloan  Foundation 


http://www.archive.org/details/newenglandclergyOObald 


DUKE-    UNIVERSITY  ■    PUBLICATIONS 


THE  NEW  ENGLAND  CLERGY 
AND  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 


London,  England: 
CAMBRIDGE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 


New  York: 
G.  E.  STECHERT  &  CO. 

Tokyo: 
MARUZEN  COMPANY 

Shanghai: 
EDWARD  EVANS  &  SONS,  LTD. 


7-,/ 

The  New  England  Clergy 

and  the  American 

Revolution 


BY 

ALICE  M.  BALDWIN 

Assistant  Professor  of  History  at  Duke  University 


DURHAM   •    NORTH  CAROLINA 

DUKE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

1928 


Copyright,  1928,  by 
Duke  University  Press 

Z  7  S~  tf  r 


THE  SEEMAN  PRESS 
DURHAM,  N.  C. 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America 


To  the  memory  of 

My  Father 

a  Congregational  Minister 


PREFACE 

The  first  half  of  this  study,  in  somewhat  different  form,  was 
submitted  under  the  title  The  Influence  of  the  New  England 
Clergy  upon  American  Constitutional  Doctrine  in  partial  ful- 
fillment of  the  requirements  for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Phil- 
osophy at  the  University  of  Chicago ;  and  it  is  with  sincere 
gratitude  that  I  acknowledge  my  indebtedness  to  Professors 
Andrew  C.  McLaughlin  and  Marcus  Jernegan  for  their  sug- 
gestions, criticism,  and  constant  encouragement  during  the 
preparation  of  my  thesis.  In  the  difficult  process  of  transform- 
ing the  thesis  into  a  book  I  have  been  greatly  aided  by  Pro- 
fessor W.  K.  Boyd,  of  Duke  University.  And  for  her  help  in 
the  reading  of  proof  and  in  various  ways  I  am  indebted  to  my 
assistant,  Miss  Louise  Seabolt. 

I  wish  further  to  express  my  appreciation  both  of  the  gen- 
erosity of  the  Duke  University  Press  in  publishing  this  mono- 
graph and  of  its  staff  in  seeing  it  through  the  troublesome 
transition  from  manuscript  to  print;  and  also  of  the  courtesy 
shown  me  by  the  librarians  of  the  many  libraries  whose  collec- 
tions I  have  used,  especially  by  Mr.  G.  S.  Godard  of  the  Con- 
necticut State  Library,  by  Mr.  A.  C.  Bates  of  the  Connecticut 
Historical  Society,  and  by  Mrs.  Shepherdson  and  Mr.  J.  H. 
Tuttle  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society. 

Finally,  the  following  study  has  not  been  for  me  one  of 
merely  academic  interest.  My  grandfather,  Rev.  Josiah  Lyman, 
of  Easthampton,  Massachusetts,  my  father,  Dr.  Fritz  W.  Bald- 
win, and  my  uncle,  Dr.  Albert  J.  Lyman,  were  all  Congrega- 
tional clergymen ;  and  it  was  through  them  that  I  first  learned 
to  appreciate,  in  some  measure,  the  ministers  of  New  England. 
To  their  memory,  also,  therefore,  i  owe  an  expression  of  my 
indebtedness. 

A.  M.  B. 


[vii] 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

INTRODUCTION  ix 

CHAPTER  I.  THE  EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  MINISTER,  HIS 

POWER  AND  LEARNING  3 

CHAPTER  II.    THE  LEGALISM  OF  THEOLOGY  AND  CHURCH 

POLITY  13 

CHAPTER  III.    CONCEPTS   OF  GOVERNMENT  22 

CHAPTER  IV.    THEORIES  CONCERNING  RULERS  IN  CHURCH 

AND   STATE  32 

CHAPTER  V.    POLITICAL  PHILOSOPHY  AND  ECCLESIASTICAL 

CONTROVERSY  BEFORE   1743  47 

CHAPTER  VI.    POLITICAL  PHILOSOPHY  AND  ECCLESIASTICAL 

CONTROVERSY:    1743-1763  65 

CHAPTER  VII.    LOYALTY  AND  RESISTANCE  TO  ENGLAND : 

1754-1766  82 

CHAPTER  VIII.    KEEPING  ALIVE  THE  FLAME:   1766-1774  105 

CHAPTER  IX.    RESISTANCE  AT  ALL  COSTS:    1774-1776  122 

CHAPTER  X.    THE  MAKING  OF  CONSTITUTIONS  134 

CHAPTER  XL    VARIED  SERVICES  DURING  THE  WAR  154 

CONCLUSION  168 

APPENDICES  173 

BIBLIOGRAPHY  190 

INDEX  211 


INTRODUCTION 

In  recent  years  historians  have  realized  as  never  before  the 
complexity  of  the  American  Revolution  and  that  its  roots  stretch 
far  back  into  the  earlier  days.  To  weigh  fairly  the  different 
causes  and  factors,  geographic,  economic,  social,  political,  and 
religious  is  a  difficult  task,  and  there  is  still  controversy  as  to 
the  emphasis  which  each  should  have. 

One  factor  which  was  recognized  by  contemporary  writers 
as  especially  significant  but  which,  until  recent  years,  has  been 
touched  but  lightly  by  later  authors  is  the  religious.  Men  of  the 
time  asserted  that  the  dissenting  clergy  and  especially  the  Puri- 
tan clergy  of  New  England  were  among  the  chief  agitators  of 
the  Revolution  and,  after  it  began,  among  the  most  zealous  and 
successful  in  keeping  it  alive.  Similar  statements  have  been 
made  by  later  writers  and  certain  of  the  more  prominent  clergy, 
especially  Mayhew,  Cooper,  and  Chauncey,  of  Boston,  have  been 
mentioned  frequently  as  Revolutionary  leaders.  A  few  of  the 
more  famous  political  sermons  have  been  collected  and  repub- 
lished.1 Biographies,  town  histories,  histories  of  American  liter- 
ature, etc.,  have  given  us  bits  about  the  work  of  this  or  that 
individual  and  have  discussed,  to  some  extent,  his  political 
theories.  Among  modern  historians  Cross  in  his  careful  study 
of  the  project  of  an  Anglican  Episcopate,2  Van  Tyne  in  his 
studies  on  the  American  Revolution,3  and  J.  T.  Adams  in  his 
first  two  volumes  on  New  England  history4  are  especially 
notable  for  their  emphasis  upon  the  significance  of  the  religious 
factor  and  the  work  of  the  clergy.  But  the  first  deals  with  one 
phase  only  of  the  subject,  and  the  limits  of  Van  Tyne's  single 
volume  and  short  article  preclude  any  detailed  treatment. 
Adams,  although  he  gives  great  weight  to  the  clergy,  especially 
during  the  seventeenth  century,  does  not  recognize  sufficiently 
the  part  they  played  in  teaching  political  theory  to  the  people 

1  J.  W.  Thornton,  The  Pulpit  of  the  American  Revolution;  Frank  Moore,  ed., 
The  Patriot  Preachers  of  the  American  Revolution;  J.  S.  Loring,  The  Hundred 
Boston  Orators,  1770-1852. 

2  A.   L.    Cross,    The  Anglican  Episcopate  and  the  American   Colonies. 

*  C.  Van  Tyne,  The  Causes  of  the  War  of  Independence;  also,  "Influence  of  the 
Clergy  and  of  Religious  and  Sectarian  Forces  on  the  American  Revolution,"  in 
Amer.  Hist.  Rev.,  XIX.  44-64. 

4  J.  T.  Adams,  The  Founding  of  New  England;  Revolutionary  New  England, 
1691-1776. 

[xi] 


Introduction 


both  before  and  after  1763  and  in  giving  to  the  theories  religi- 
ous sanction,  nor  does  he  emphasize  sufficiently  the  bearing  of 
the  ecclesiastical  quarrels  and  religious  movements  of  the 
eighteenth  century  upon  the  development  of  a  spirit  of  inde- 
pendence, a  love  of  liberty,  and  the  use  of  arguments  with 
which  to  support  it. 

In  short,  the  intimate  relation  of  the  New  England  minister 
to  the  thought  and  life  of  eighteenth-century  New  England  has 
never  been  adequately  developed.  That  is  the  purpose  of  this 
study :  first,  to  make  clear  the  similarity,  the  identity  of  Puritan 
theology  and  fundamental  political  thought ;  second,  to  show 
how  the  New  England  clergy  preserved,  extended,  and  popular- 
ized the  essential  doctrines  of  political  philosophy,  thus  making 
familiar  to  every  church-going  New  Englander  long  before  1763 
not  only  the  doctrines  of  natural  right,  the  social  contract,  and 
the  right  of  resistance  but  also  the  fundamental  principle  of 
American  constitutional  law,  that  government,  like  its  citizens, 
is  bounded  by  law  and  when  it  transcends  its  authority  it  acts 
illegally.  The  author  believes  that  here  can  be  traced  a  direct 
line  of  descent  from  seventeenth-century  philosophy  to  the 
doctrines  underlying  the  American  Revolution  and  the  making 
of  written  constitutions.  It  is  hoped  that  the  study  may  explain, 
in  some  measure,  why  these  theories  were  so  widely  held,  so 
dearly  cherished,  and  so  deeply  inwrought  into  American  con- 
stitutional doctrine.  And,  finally,  an  attempt  is  made  to  present, 
in  some  detail,  the  activities  of  the  clergy  in  the  events  of  the 
Revolution  and  in  establishing  the  institutions  of  the  new-born 
states. 

Further,  it  should  be  remembered  that  throughout  the  colonial 
period  the  great  majority  of  the  people  in  all  the  New  England 
colonies  except  Rhode  Island  were  Congregationalists,  who 
sometimes  and  in  some  places  approached  so  closely  to  Pres- 
byterianism  that  it  is  hard  to  distinguish  accurately  between  the 
two  sects.  Such  distinction  was  frequently  not  made  at  all  at  the 
time  of  the  Revolution  by  their  adversaries,  who  applied  the 
name  Presbyterian  to  both  indiscriminately.  There  were,  how- 
ever, churches  definitely  organized  into  Presbyteries  and,  as  the 
eighteenth  century  progressed,  an  increasing  number  of  Bap- 


Introduction  xiii 


tists  and  Episcopalians.5  This  study  deals  primarily  with  the 
Nonconformist  clergy,  making  such  distinction  between  the 
various  sects  as  may  be  necessary  when  essential  differences  of 
opinion  in  theology  or  politics  appear.  Unless,  then,  the  sect  is 
mentioned  the  term  "clergy"  is  to  be  understood  as  applying 
to  the  Nonconformists  and  especially  to  the  Congregationalists 
and  Presbyterians. 

5  Ezra  Stiles,  in  his  Discourse  on  Christian  Union,  1760,  p.  130,  estimates  that 
there  were  at  that  time  300  Congregational  churches  in  Massachusetts,  170  in  Con- 
necticut, 43  in  New  Hampshire, — 530  in  all.  Charles  Chauncey,  in  A  Letter  to  a 
Friend,  1767,  note  p.  8,  says  that  at  the  lowest  computation  there  were  not  less 
than  550  regularly  ordained  ministers  in  New  England,  some  Presbyterian,  mostly 
Congregational.  Clark,  in  Congregational  Churches  in  Massachusetts,  p.  193,  com- 
putes that  in  1770  there  were  in  Massachusetts  294  Congregational  churches,  11 
Episcopalian,  16  Baptist,  18  Quaker.  The  proportion  was  approximately  the  same 
elsewhere  in  New  England,  perhaps  more  Episcopalians  in  Connecticut  and  more 
Baptists  in  Rhode  Island.  Guild,  in  Chaplain  Smith  and  the  Baptists,  note  p.  157, 
says  that  in  1764  there  were  less  than  70  Baptist  churches  in  America,  with  pos- 
sibly 5000  members.  They  grew  rapidly  in  numbers,  especially  after  1774.  Briggs, 
in  his  American  Presbyterianism,  pp.  342-43,  says  that  at  the  time  of  the  Revo- 
lution there  were  five  Presbyteries  in  New  England  with  thirty-two  ministers.  Cer- 
tain of  the  Presbyterian  churches,  notably  in  the  Grafton  Presbytery,  had  been 
Congregational.  The  churches  sometimes  shifted  from  one  to  the  other  several 
times.  In  Connecticut,  the  consociated  churches  based  on  the  Saybrook  Platform, 
approached  closely  to  Presbyterianism. 


THE  NEW  ENGLAND  CLERGY 
AND  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 


Chapter  I 
THE  EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  MINISTER 

HIS  POWER  AND  HIS  LEARNING 

The  New  England  clergy  of  the  eighteenth  century  occupied 
a  position  of  peculiar  influence  and  power  in  the  life  of  their 
own  communities  and  of  the  several  colonies.  It  is  true  that 
they  had  lost  something  of  the  respect  and  reverence  as  well  as 
much  of  the  political  power  which  they  had  enjoyed  in  the  first 
sixty  years  of  settlement  and  expansion.  Nevertheless,  it  is 
unsafe  to  conclude  that  their  parishioners  did  not  on  the  whole 
respect  them  and  that  their  influence  was  small.  There  is  abun- 
dant evidence  to  the  contrary.1 

They  were  for  the  most  part  a  "learned  clergy,"  graduates 
of  Harvard  or  of  Yale.2  Shortly  after  graduation  the  young 
ministers  were  settled  in  their  new  parishes,  where  they  often 
remained  throughout  their  lives.  Sometimes  they  were  given 
land,  money,  or  some  other  special  inducement  to  settle  and 
were  usually  promised  a  salary  which,  when  paid  regularly  and 
in  specie,  meant  comfort  at  least.  But  frequently  the  salary  was 
in  arrears  or  paid  in  depreciated  currency  and  at  the  best  was 
none  too  large  to  meet  the  demands  of  such  a  position.  For  the 
most  part  the  ministers  lived  in  small  towns  or  smaller  villages 
and  stretched  their  salaries  to  the  family  needs  by  farming  or 
by  taking  into  their  homes  a  few  boys  whom  they  fitted  for 
college  or  trained  for  the  ministry.  Here  they  lived  among  their 
people,  on  week  days  settling  disputes  and  occasionally,  in  the 
remoter  districts,  serving  as  doctor  or  even  as  village  lawyer  or 

1  See  Adams,  Founding  of  New  England,  pp.  450-51;  Revolutionary  New  Eng- 
land, pp.  169-73;  Sabine,  Loyalists  of  the  American  Revolution,  I.  59;  and  various 
other  references  throughout  this  study.  Certain  of  the  election  sermons  of  the  early 
eighteenth  century,  especially  in  Connecticut,  lament  the  disaffection  of  the  peo- 
ple to  the  ministry.  See  Chauncey,  1719,  pp.  48-50;  Marsh,  1721,  pp.  38-39; 
Williams,  1723,  pp.  48-51.  Some  of  the  reasons  for  this  criticism  will  be  explained 
later. 

2  Of  52  settled  Congregational  ministers  in  New  Hampshire  in  1764,  48,  says 
Stackpole,  were  college  graduates.  From  1748-1800,  nine-tenths  were  college  gradu- 
ates {History  of  New  Hampshire,  II.  304).  Many  of  the  Baptist  and  Separate  Con- 
gregational  clergy  were  not  educated  men.  In  1764,  Guild  says,  there  were  but  two 
liberally  educated  Baptist  ministers  in  New  England  {Chaplain  Smith,  ■p.  49).  Before 
1783  there  were  a  good  many  more. 


[3] 


4  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

school  teacher,3  on  the  Sabbath  preaching  to  men  and  women 
whose  lives  they  intimately  shared.  They  were  sober  and  indus- 
trious in  their  ways,  usually  dignified  in  their  bearing,  and  they 
spoke  as  men  having  authority.  "You  must  expect  if  you  come 
to  Danbury  to  be  a  good  deal  noticed  &  perhaps  gazed  at," 
wrote  young  Ebenezer  Baldwin  in  1763  to  his  sister  Bethiah, 
"for  to  be  the  Minister's  sister  you  know  in  a  Country  Town  is 
a  considerable  thing."4 

In  those  days  of  few  newspapers  and  fewer  books  and  of 
little  travel,  the  ministers  who  perhaps  attended  the  annual 
ministerial  conventions,  or  at  least  the  meetings  of  the  local 
associations,  who  read  more  than  most  of  their  neighbors,  who 
corresponded  with  their  fellow-ministers  and  men  of  other 
towns  and  colonies,  who  had  often  been  the  classmates  and 
remained  the  friends  of  the  rising  young  lawyers  and  merchants, 
were  likely  to  be  a  means  of  contact  between  their  parishioners 
and  the  outside  world.  As  teachers  who  prepared  the  more 
ambitious  boys  for  college,  they  had  an  opportunity  to  impress 
them  with  their  own  beliefs.  As  preachers  they  had  at  least  a 
weekly  opportunity  to  reach  most  of  the  people  living  in  the 
parish,  who  if  not  church  members  were  usually  church  attend- 
ants. They  preached  not  only  on  Sunday  but  on  many  special 
occasions  prescribed  by  the  churches  or  ordered  by  the  colonial 
assemblies,  such  as  days  of  fasting  and  prayer  and  days  of 
thanksgiving.  If  special  news  arrived,  such  as  the  death  of  the 
King,  a  defeat  or  victory  in  war,  the  minister  was  likely  to 
make  the  most  of  it,  and  to  his  country  audience  a  sermon  on 
such  a  theme  must  have  been  especially  welcome.  Here  was  a 
fine  opportunity  to  impress  upon  the  community  his  political 
beliefs.  Moreover,  not  only  were  doctrinal  and  political  ser- 
mons heard  from  the  pulpit,  but  also  bits  of  important  letters, 
decisions  of  ecclesiastical  councils,  proclamations  from  the  seat 
of  government,  news  from  the  army.5 

3  The  latter  was  rare.  For  examples  and  discussion,  see  Centennial  Papers  of  the 
General  Conference,  Connecticut,  1867,  pp.  28-30;  B.  Emerson,  The  Ipswich  Em- 
ersons,  pp.  91,  94,  95;  Stackpole,  History  of  New  Hampshire,  p.  307;  Holland,  His- 
tory of   Western  Massachusetts,  p.  279. 

4  New  Haven   Colony  Hist.   Soc.  Papers,  IX.    164. 

5  Wheelock's  Memoirs,  p.  217.  He  read  a  letter  of  Dennis  de  Berdt  during  the 
French  and  Indian  War  and  said  he  would  read  others  of  interest.  See  also  Love, 
Fast  and  Thanksgiving  Days  of  New  England. 


The  Eighteenth-Century  Minister 


In  the  larger  towns  there  was  also  a  weekly  lecture,  less 
religious  in  character,  at  which  a  sermon  was  preached.  And  in 
the  chief  cities  there  had  long  been  special  occasions  which  gave 
the  clergy  opportunities  to  get  their  ideas  before  the  public. 
There  was  the  annual  ministerial  convention  which  came,  in 
Massachusetts  at  least,  at  the  time  of  the  election  of  the  Council. 
In  Massachusetts  there  was  the  annual  artillery  election. 
In  Connecticut,  in  Massachusetts,  in  Plymouth  so  long  as  it 
remained  a  separate  colony,  and  in  Vermont  after  1778,  there 
was  the  general  election  day,  coming  always  in  the  spring,  when 
the  Council  was  elected  and  a  special  minister  was  chosen  to 
preach  the  sermon  which  was,  as  a  rule,  printed  by  order  of 
the  Assembly  and  distributed,  usually,  it  would  seem,  one  copy 
to  each  member  of  the  Assembly  and  sometimes  at  least  one  or 
more  to  the  minister  or  ministers  of  the  towns.6 

Some  of  these  election  sermons  discussed  the  government  of 
the  ancient  Hebrews  and  its  excellencies ;  many  were  theoretical, 
concerned  with  the  origin  and  end  of  government;  some  dealt 
more  particularly  with  their  own  charters  and  the  dearly- 
won  rights  of  Englishmen ;  some,  with  great  freedom  of  speech, 
gave  practical  advice  to  the  Assembly  about  well-known  evils 
and  desirable  laws;  the  majority  discussed  in  greater  or  less 
detail  the  qualities  and  responsibilities  of  magistrates.  Year 
after  year  the  same  themes  were  discussed ;  often  the  same 
phraseology  was  used.  Usually  enough  of  the  writer's  own  atti- 
tude appears  to  enable  the  reader  to  judge  of  his  conservatism 
or  liberalism.  Now  and  again  there  was  an  election  preacher 

e  See  Bibliography;  also  Walker,  A  History  of  the  Congregational  Churches  in  the 
United  States,  pp.  244-45,  and  Thornton,  Pulpit  of  the  American  Revolution,  pp. 
xxiii-xxvi. 

There  seems  to  be  some  question  as  to  the  fjcqueiicy  of  their  publication  at  the 
expense  of  the  General  Court.  Many  say  in  the  frontispiece  that  a  copy  was  desired 
by  the  Assembly  for  the  printer.  In  1684  the  General  Court  thanked  Mr.  Hale  for 
his  Election  Sermon,  desired  a  copy  for  the  press,  and  desired  that  "effectual 
care''  be  taken  "that  ye  same  be  printed  at  ye  publique  charge"  (Mass.  Archives, 
XI,  no.  33a).  Joseph  Belcher's  Election  Sermon  of  1701  was  printed  by  order 
and  500  copies  distributed  among  the  towns.  At  least  four  imprints  of  this  ser- 
mon were  made.  In  1775  Mr.  Langdon's  sermon  was  printed  and  a  copy  sent  by 
order  of  Court  to  each  minister  and  member  of  Congress  (Swift,  p.  426).  If  a 
sermon  by  its  boldness  displeased  the  Court  there  was  occasionally  some  hesita- 
tion about  printing  it.  See  Sewall,  Letter  Book,  II.  236-37,  note.  Foxcroft's  ser- 
mon before  Court  was  printed  by  the  Court  (Sewall's  Letter  Book,  II.  232).  With 
a  very  few  exceptions,  however,  these  sermons  were  printed,  whether  at  public 
or  private  expense.  The  first  election  sermon  was  preached  in  Mass.,  1633;  in 
Conn.,  1674;  in  N.  H.,  1784;  in  Vt.,  1778.  The  custom  was  peculiar  to  New  Eng- 
land and  was  continued  into  the   19th  century. 


6  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

who  was  exceptionally  direct  and  thorough-going  in  his  dis- 
cussion either  of  government  or  of  the  agitations  of  the  day,  or 
of  both.  But  whether  stereotyped  or  original,  conservative  or 
radical,  for  a  hundred  years  before  the  Revolution  and  year  by 
year  throughout  the  long  conflict,  these  sermons  dealt  with 
matters  of  government.  They  were  heard  by  large  audiences  of 
clergy  and  laymen ;  they  had  the  prestige  of  well-known  names 
and  of  the  colonial  assembly  attached  to  them;  they  were  sent 
to  friends  in  other  colonies  and  in  England  and  were  distributed 
regularly  to  the  country  towns  where  they  became,  as  Winsor 
styles  them,  "text-books  of  politics."7  Thus  they  passed  from 
hand  to  hand  and  from  colony  to  colony.  Their  theories  and 
even  their  phrases  reached  the  ears  of  townsmen  and  country- 
men. Possibly  men  may  often  have  been  unheeding  because  of 
the  constant  repetition,  but  that  very  repetition  through  so  many 
years  must  have  driven  the  ideas  and  phrases  home  until  they 
became  part  of  the  warp  and  woof  of  New  England  thought. 
It  is  not  only  in  the  election  sermons  that  one  must  search 
for  the  political  theories  of  the  clergy.  Other  sources,  less 
determined  by  the  long  tradition  of  the  occasion,  are  the  political 
sermons  preached  to  a  minister's  own  people  in  towns  and 
especially  in  country  villages,  the  letters  and  articles  written  to 
newspapers,  and  the  correspondence  with  friends,  as  well  as  the 
town  and  county  documents  which  they  frequently  helped  to 
draw  up.  Especially  important  are  the  doctrinal  sermons  and 
the  pamphlet  literature  occasioned  by  the  frequent  religious 
and  ecclesiastical  controversies  of  the  eighteenth  century.  In 
these   controversies,  which  often  involved  laymen  as   well  as 

T  J.  Winsor,  Memorial  History  of  Boston,  III.  120,  says  that  the  small  village 
pulpits  rang  throughout  the  year  with  the  sentiments  of  the  election  sermons,  that 
they  served  as  text  books  in  politics,  and  that  thus  the  New  Englander  had  be- 
come "enlightened  in  speculative  and  practical  politics  to  a  degree  unknown  any- 
where else  in  the  world."  J.  Mayhew,  Observations  on  the  Charter  and  Conduct  of 
the  S.  P.  G.,  1763,  p.  39,  says  "...  the  common  people  of  New  England,  by 
means  of  our  schools,  and  the  instructions  of  our  'able,  learned,  orthodox  ministers,' 
are,  and  have  all  along  been,  philosophers  and  divines  in  comparison  of  the  com- 
mon people  in  England,  of  the  communion  of  the  church  there  established.  This 
is  commonly  said  by  those  who  have  had  an  opportunity  personally  to  inform  them- 
selves." 

That  the  election  and  other  sermons  were  widely  distributed  and  read  is  evi- 
dent from  the  frequent  mention  of  them  both  by  the  laymen  and  clergy  and  by  the 
numerous  quotations  in  other  sermons.  See  note,  p.  10;  also  frequent  references 
in  Sewall's  Letter  Book  to  sermons  sent  to  England,  to  Conn.,  to  Mass.,  and  other 
colonies;  Cotton  Mather,  "Diary",  (Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  7th  Ser.,  VIII.  128-29); 
Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Col!.  LXXIV.  73,  88.  See  later  references  to  sermons  distributed 
by  Mayhew,  Chauncey,  and  others,  and  to  the  use  of  election  sermons. 


The  Eighteenth-Century  Minister 


clergy,  can  be  seen  the  reaction  of  the  layman  to  the  ministerial 
teaching  and  his  application  to  ecclesiastical  matters  of  the  doc- 
trines which  he  later  applied  to  political  questions.  Here  one 
sometimes  finds  striking  analogies  between  religious  and  politi- 
cal creeds.  Indeed,  as  one  studies  this  everyday  literature  of  the 
time,  it  becomes  increasingly  evident  that  the  New  England 
ideas  of  government  were  intimately  connected  with  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Bible.  Although  theology  was  of  less  impor- 
tance to  the  average  New  Englander  in  the  eighteenth  than  in 
the  seventeenth  century,  it  still  had  a  far  more  important  place 
in  his  life  than  it  has  today. 

The  sources  from  which  the  New  England  ministers  devel- 
oped their  theories  may  be  learned  partly  from  the  quotations 
and  foot-notes  which  frequently  are  to  be  found  in  sermons  and 
pamphlets,  partly  from  diaries,  letters,  and  other  documents. 
The  references  by  name  to  ancient  and  more  modern  authors  did 
not  always  mean,  however,  that  the  ministers  had  read  their 
works,  but  rather  had  found  them  referred  to  or  quoted  in  the 
works  of  some  historian  or  Biblical  commentator. 

The  most  common  source  was  the  Bible.  The  Old  Testament 
furnished  many  illustrations  of  covenant  relations,  of  the  limi- 
tations placed  upon  rulers  and  people,  of  natural  rights,  of  the 
divine  constitution,  etc.  The  New  Testament  gave  authority  for 
the  liberties  of  Christians,  for  the  relation  of  Christians  to  those 
in  authority  over  them,  and  for  the  right  of  resistance.  Indeed, 
there  was  never  a  principle  derived  from  more  secular  reading 
that  was  not  strengthened  and  sanctified  by  the  Scriptures. 

Another  source  seems  to  have  been  the  writers  of  classical 
and  late  Roman  days  to  which  reference  was  made  from  the 
seventeenth  century  throughout  the  entire  period  under  dis- 
cussion. Those  most  frequently  referred  to  were  Thucydides, 
Aristotle,  Plato,  Cicero,  Vergil,  Seneca,  Tacitus,  Sallust,  Plu- 
tarch, Pliny,  Josephus,  and  Eusebius ;  while  others  such  as 
Socrates,  Demosthenes,  Caesar,  Horace,  Lactantius,  Juvenal, 
Suetonius,  and  the  church  fathers  were  occasionally  mentioned. 

The  next  great  source  was  the  works  of  John  Locke,  his 
essays  on  religious  toleration  and  human  understanding  as  well 
as  those  on  government.  He  was  quoted  by  name  as  early  as 
1738,  but  his  influence  is  to  be  seen  in  earlier  works.  Especially 
after  1763  the  references  to  him  are  numerous,  not  only  by  the 


8  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

more  prominent  ministers  of  the  larger  towns  but  by  those  of 
country  villages  as  well.  And  in  many  works  in  which  no  direct 
reference  is  made  one  finds  his  theories,  sometimes  his  very 
phrases,  and  this  is  true  for  years  before  1761  as  well  as 
afterwards. 

Other  writers  to  which  frequent  reference  was  made  before 
1761  as  well  as  later  were  Luther,  Calvin,  Hoadly,  Sydney, 
Puffendorf,  Sir  Edward  Coke,  Milton,  Burnet,  Butler,  Wollas- 
ton,  and  Tillotson,8  while  Voltaire  was  mentioned  only  by  May- 
hew,  and  Hobbes  by  Eliphalet  Williams  and  James  Dana  of 
Connecticut,  the  latter  quoting  him  as  referred  to  by  Whitby. 
A  common  source  was  the  histories  of  the  colonies,  of  England, 
and  of  other  countries.  Most  frequently  mentioned  after  1761 
and  sometimes  as  a  source  from  which  Locke's  words  were 
taken  were  Neal's  histories  of  the  Puritans  and  of  New  Eng- 
land. Others  were  Rapin's  History  of  England,  Rider's  History 
of  England,  Perrin's  History  of  the  W aldenses ,  and  after  1766 
Hutchinson's  History  of  Massachusetts.  Another  source  of 
political  theory  was  the  commentaries  and  annotations  on  the 
Bible.  Those  most  frequently  mentioned  were  Whitby,  Henry, 
and  Pool.  After  1761  other  authors  quoted  or  referred  to  by 
several  different  men  were  Harrington,  Montesquieu,  Lord 
Somers,  Bacon,  Blackstone,  Dr.  Watts,  and  Dr.  Warburton, 
while  occasional  reference  was  made  to  Junius,  Vattel,  Burla- 
maqui,  Fortesque,  Bracton,  and  others.9 

8  Benjamin  Hoadly,  The  Common  Rights  of  Subjects  Vindicated,  1718;  Measures 
of  Submission  to  the  Civil  Magistrate  Considered,  1705;  Algernon  Sydney,  Dis- 
courses Concerning  Government,  a  new  edition  of  his  works,  1772;  Samuel  Puffen- 
dorf, The  Law  of  Nature  and  Nations,  1703;  also,  The  divine  feudal  Law,  or  Cove- 
nants with  Mankind  represented,  together  with  Means  for  uniting  of  Protestants, 
trans,  into  Eng.,  1703;  also,  De  Officio  Hominis  et  Civis,  juxta  Legem  Natural  em, 
1763  (all  had  several  editions)  ;  Bishop  Gilbert  Burnet,  The  History  of  the  Reforma- 
tion of  the  Church  of  England,  1679,  81;  History  of  His  Own  Time,  2  vols.,  1724-34; 
various  pamphlets  and  sermons;  Bishop  Butler,  Analogy  of  Religion,  Natural  and 
Revealed,  to  the  Constitution  and  Course  of  Nature,  1736;  Sir  Ed.  Coke,  Institutes 
of  the  Laws  of  England,  1628;  Wm.  Wollaston,  The  Religion  of  Nature  delineated 
(10,000  copies  sold  by  1738;  seven  editions  between  1728  and  1750;  see  Lowndes, 
Biographers'  Manual,  p.  2976);  John  Tillotson,  Sermons  (vol.  I  was  pub.  in  1671; 
many  others  later  and  in  many  editions;  an  edition  of  his  works  with  life  pub.  in 
1752).  Colman  said  that  the  works  of  Thos.  Bradbury  of  London  were  well  known 
and  loved  (Colman  Papers,  II.  no  63).  A  new  edition  was  published  in  1768  and 
quotations  given,  especially  a  sermon  in  1713.  Stoughton,  History  of  Religion  in 
England,  V.  397-99,  says  Bradbury,  about  1714,  made  his  pulpit  a  tribune  for  as- 
sertion of  ecclesiastical  and  civil  liberty.  A  famous  sermon  of  1712  was  very  radical. 

9  Daniel  Whitby,  A  Paraphrase  and  Commentary  on  the  New  Testament,  2  vols., 
1700,  many  editions;  also  sermons,  treatises,  and  other  works;  Henry  Matthew, 
An  Exposition  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  5  vols.,  1st  collective  ed.  1710 
(many  later  editions) ;  Miscellaneous  Works,  1st  ed.    1726;   Matthew  Pool,   Synopsis 


The  Eighteenth-Century  Minister 


The  ministers  frequently  quoted  earlier  election  sermons,  not 
only  in  their  own  election  sermons  but  in  other  sermons,  and  in 
pamphlets,  letters,  and  newspaper  articles.  They  also  quoted 
other  works  by  ministers  such  as  the  Magnolia,  the  pamphlets 
of  John  Wise,10  Stile's  Christian  Union,  the  pamphlets  of  May- 
hew  and  Chauncey  relating  to  the  work  of  the  S.  P.  G.  After 
1765  there  was  frequent  quotation  of  the  political  sermons, 
both  election  and  others.11  Occasionally  political  pamphlets  not 
written  by  clergymen  were  mentioned.  Among  these  were 
Paine's  Common  Sense,12  the  articles  of  the  "Farmer",13  works 
by  J.  Quincy,  Jr.,  and  Dr.  Price,  The  Interest  of  Great  Britain 
Considered  with  Regard  to  Her  Colonies,  the  Excellencies  of  a 
Free  State,  Consideration  on  the  Measures  Carrying  on  with 
Respect  to  the  British  Colonies  in  North  America,  and  various 
letters  and  pamphlets  from  England,  such  as  the  sermons  of 
the  Bishops  of  Llandaff  and  of  St.  Asaph.14 

Criticorum  aliorumque  S.  Scripturae  Interpretum,  5  vols.,  1669-76;  Annotations 
upon  the  Holy  Bible,  1683-5,  2  vols,  (various  editions);  James  Harrington,  Oceana, 
1st  ed.  1656;  Political  Discourses,  1st  ed.  1660;  Works  (many  editions);  Lord 
John  Somers,  A  Collection  of  scarce  and  valuable  Tracts,  16  vols.,  1748-52;  The 
Judgement  of  whole  Kingdoms  and  Nations  concerning  the  Right  Power  and  Pre- 
rogative of  Kings,  and  the  Rights,  Properties  and  Privileges  of  the  People,  etc., 
1771  (Bohn  says  this  was  erroneously  attributed  to  Somers) ;  Isaac  Watts,  D.  D., 
Logic,  or  the  right  Use  of  Reason  in  the  Enquiry  after  Truth,  1725  (many  editions) ; 
Sermons,  1721-23  (many  editions);  Philosophical  Essays,  1734  (a  6  vol.  ed.  of  his 
works  was  pub.  in  1753);  Bishop  Wm.  Warburton,  The  Alliance  between  Church 
and  State,  4th  ed.,  1741;  The  Principles  of  natural  and  revealed  Religion,  2  vols., 
1743-54;  The  Divine  Legation  of  Moses,  Demonstrated;  many  letters  and  other 
works;  Junius,  Letters,  1769  (some  reprinted  in  Amer.  newspapers);  Emer  de 
Vattel,  The  Law  of  Natioiis-,  or  Principles  of  the  Law  of  Nature  applied  to  the  Con- 
duct and  Affairs  of  Nations  and  Sovereigns,  1760;  J.  J.  Burlamaqui,  Principles  of 
natural  and  politic  Lazv,  2  vols.,  1748  (several  editions;  quoted  by  Dr.  Samuel 
Cooper  in  letter  to  Pownall,  1773;  cf.  Amer.  Hist.  Rev.  VIII.  327-28);  Sir  John 
Fortesaue,  De  Laudihus  Legum  Angliae,  1616,  Latin  and  Engl.  ed.  1675;  also 
The  Difference  between  an  absolute  and  limited  Monarchy  (both  went  through 
several  editions) ;  Henri  de  Bracton,  De  Legibus  et  Consuetudinibus  Angliae  Li- 
briquinque,    1569    (various   editions). 

10  John  Wise,  The  Churches  Quarrel  Espoused,  Boston,  1772,  first  pub.  1710;  A 
Vindication  of  the  Government  of  New  England  Churches,  in  same  ed.  as  above, 
first  pub.  1717.  In  a  copy  of  die  2nd  ed.  of  1772  of  Wise's  books  there  is  a  list  of 
subscribers  from  P — Z;  and  among  them  were  six  ministers,  one  of  whom  took  six 
copies. 

11  Stiles  preserved  the  political  articles  published  in  1765  by  Rev.  Stephen  John- 
son of  Lyme  in  the.  New  London  Gazette.  The  Fast  Day  Sermons  of  1765  by  John- 
son and  of  1774  by  Sherwood  were  quoted,   among  others. 

12  Read  by  Samuel  Cooper  of  Boston.  See  Calendar  of  Franklin  Papers,  I.  179. 
Thos.    Allen   of   Pittsfield  also  read   it. 

13  Richard  Salter,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1768,  p.  39;  S.  Sherwood,  Fast 
Day   Sermon,    1774,    p.    vii. 

14  See  Hollis  Papers.  Various  ones  sent  to  Andrew  Eliot  were  read  and  distributed 
by  him.  See  also  letters  between  Samuel  Cooper  and  Benj.  Franklin.  Franklin  sent 
numerous  pamphlets  to  Cooper,  such  as  Beaumont's  Reflexions  d'un  Etranger  des- 
interesse,  four  Irish  pamphlets,  Molyneux's  Case  of  Ireland,  etc.;  cf.  Writings  of  B. 
Franklin,    V.  254-55,    203-05,    259,    262,    298-99,    etc.     A    pamphlet    of    1691,    Eng- 


10  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

To  illustrate  more  fully  the  reading  of  the  ministers  it  may 
be  interesting  to  choose  a  few — of  different  periods,  colonies 
and  position — and  list  the  books  to  which  they  referred.  Azariah 
Mather  of  Haddam  in  his  Connecticut  Election  Sermon  of 
1725  referred  to  "Famous  Bolton,"  Seneca,  and  Aesop.  He 
quoted  from  Fuller :  "A  good  Ruler  is  one  that  looks  on  Salus 
Populi  to  be  Maxima  Charta" ;  from  Cicero :  "Salus  Populi  est 
Finis  imperii" ;  and  from  Henry :  "Good  Rulers  will  be  in  Pain, 
when  Subjects  are  in  Tears." 

Jared  Eliot  of  Killingworth,  Franklin's  friend  and  corres- 
pondent, in  his  Election  Sermon  of  1738  referred  to  Sir  Wil- 
liam Temple's  Memoirs  (also  mentioned  by  others),  to  "Whitby 
in  Loc",  Jerome,  Tertullian,  Locke,  "Shuckford's  Conect", 
Rapin,  and  Puffendorf ,15 

Jonathan  Mayhew  of  Boston  had  read  Harrington,  Sydney, 
Locke,  Milton,  and  Hoadly.16  Before  1759  Thomas  Hollis  of 
London  had  sent  him  Sydney's  discussion  on  government  and 
Milton's  Eikonoklastes;1"*  and  in  1764  a  new  edition  of  Syd- 
ney ;18  in  1764,  the  new  edition  of  Locke's  treatises  on  govern- 
ment19 and  in  1765  a  new  edition  of  Milton's  prose  works  and 
Andrew  Marvel's  Rehearsal  Trans prosJd.20  In  his  published 
works  Mayhew  not  only  referred  to  these  authors  but  to 
Epictetus,  Bishop  Butler,  Dr.  Warburton,  Voltaire,  Sir  Thomas 

lish  Liberties  or  the  Freeborn  Subjects'  Inheritance,  by  Henry  Care  and  Wm.  Nel- 
son had  its  6th  ed.  in  1774.  Many  copies  were  subscribed  for,  466  names  being 
given,  many  taking  several  copies;  14  clergymen  in  Mass.  and  Conn,  are  mentioned. 
In  Windham  Co.,  Conn.,  120  copies  were  taken,  chiefly  by  farmers.  Six  minis- 
ters in  five  out  of  the  eight  towns  subscribed.  See  English  Liberties  .  .  .  ,  1774, 
and  Larned,  History  of  Windham  County,  II.  140-41. 

15  Mather,  pp.  12-15.  Robert  Bolton  was  a  learned  Puritan  scholar  of  the  17th 
century  who  wrote  many  sermons,  etc. :  Dr.  Thomas  Fuller  wrote  sermons,  pam- 
phlets, histories,  etc.  One  pub.  in  1658  was  The  Soveraign's  Prerogative  and  Sub- 
ject's Privilege.  Dr.  Samuel  Shuckford  in  1728-54  pub.  in  4  vols.  The  sacred  and 
profane  History  of  the  World,  connected  from  the  Creation  of  the  World  to  the 
Dissolution   of  the  Assyrian  Empire.   This  went  through   several   editions. 

16  Tudor,  Life  of  James  Otis,  p.  145;  Mayhew,  Sermons,  1748,  pp.  37-38,  and  vari- 
ous references  in  his  other  works.  John  Adams  married  the  daughter  of  Rev.  Wm. 
Smith  of  Weymouth.  She  and  her  sisters  were  said  to  have  been  versed  in  Shakes- 
peare, Milton,  Tillotson,  Berkeley,  etc.,  and  not  unacquainted  with  Butler  and 
Locke.  See  John  Adams,  Life  and  Works,  I.  61,63.  Adams,  as  a  boy,  used  to  listen 
to  Rev.  Lemuel  Bryant,  "a  liberal  scholar  and  divine,"  and  the  schoolmaster, 
Joseph  Cleverly,  argue  about  government  and  religion  (X.  254).  In  early  days  he 
talked  with  his  cousin,  Rev.  Zabdiel  Adams,  about  Newton,  Bacon,  Locke,  and 
many    other    authors    (II.  105). 

"Hollis  Papers,   1759-1770,   Letter  of   Aug.    16,    1759. 
18  Ibid.,  Nov.  21,   1763. 
10  Ibid.,   no.   35. 

M  Ibid.,  no.  49.  Marvell  wrote  in  the  17th  century  various  works  on  popery  and 
arbitrary  government.   The  Rehearsal  Transpros'd,  was  published   1672. 


The  Eighteenth-Century  Minister  11 

More,  sermons  and  addresses  by  Hobart  and  other  ministers, 
and  various  other  works  of  less  significance. 

Andrew  Eliot,  another  Boston  clergyman  of  prominence,  said 
that  Sydney  was  "the  first  who  taught  me  to  form  any  just 
sentiments  on  government."21  He  also  received  and  read  many 
books  and  pamphlets  from  Hollis  and  speaks  in  his  letters  of 
Harrington,  Sydney,  Locke,  Milton,  of  whose  Defensio  pro 
populo  Anglicano  he  never  wearied,22  Trenchard's  History  of 
Standing  Armies,231  and  the  Excellencie  of  a  free  State.2*  In  his 
Election  Sermon  of  1765  he  referred  to  Burlamaqui,  Montes- 
quieu, Livy,  Horace,  Prince's  Election  Sermon  of  1728,  and  to 
Dr.  Stephen  Hales,  an  eighteenth-century  writer  on  natural 
philosophy. 

A  much  more  obscure  person  was  the  Reverend  Dan  Foster, 
of  Connecticut,  who  in  1774  wrote  six  sermons  on  civil  gov- 
ernment in  order  to  enlighten  his  people  on  the  issues  of  the  day. 
He  referred  to  Cicero,  translated  by  Roger  L'Estrange,  Prid- 
eaux's  Connection,  "Lord  Sommers",  "Monsieur  Meveray,  as  I 
find  him  quoted",  and  Neal's  History  of  the  Puritans.25  Another 
less  well  known  minister  was  Peter  Whitney  of  Northborough, 
Massachusetts,  who  in  two  sermons  delivered  July  14,  1774, 
quoted  Locke,  the  treatise  Vox  populi,  vox  Dei,  Montesquieu, 
Bishop  Burnet,  quoted  from  Hutchinson's  history,  Mayhew, 
and  the  Election  Sermons  of  Eliot,  Cooke,  Turner  and  Haven. 

Now  and  then  in  a  diary  can  be  found  a  list  of  the  books  read. 
The  wide  reading  of  Ezra  Stiles  needs  no  mention.  A  much  less 
travelled  and  learned  man  was  the  Reverend  Ebenezer  Park- 

21  Ibid.,   no.    109. 

22  Ibid.,    no.    121. 

23  Ibid.,    no.    171. 

24  Ibid.,  no.  109.  See  Writings  of  B.  Franklin,  ed.  Smyth,  IX.  104.  Hollis  sent 
works  on  government  such  as  the  above  to  Harvard,  Yale,  Princeton,  and  the  col- 
lege of  Bermuda  as  well  as  to  individuals;  therefore  the  students  graduating  after 
1760  must  have  had  an  opportunity  to  read  them.  Many  of  the.  graduates  were  of 
course  ministers  in  1770.  Many  of  the  books  referred  to  in  preceding  lists  were  in 
Dartmouth  College  Library  in  1775.  Of  the  works  dealing  primarily  with  govern- 
ment and  political  theory  the  only  ones  were  those  of  Locke.  See  the  typed  list  in 
Dartmouth  College  Library. 

25  Humphrey  Prideaux,  D.D.,  The  old  and  new  Testament  connected  in  the  His- 
tory of  the  Jews  and  neighboring  Nations,  3  vols.,  1716  (many  editions).  I  have 
not  learned  what  Meveray  was  meant.  Rev.  David  Barnes  of  Scituate  is  said  to 
have  been  a  great  reader,  and  eager  "for  every  new  publication  on  politics,  religion, 
ethics,  or  philosophy."  He  was  very  liberal  (Bradford,  Biog.  Notices,  p.  56).  Rev. 
Peter  Thacher,  of  Maiden,  was  unusually  well  read  in  civil  and  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory. He  could  quote  freely  from  the  essays,  sermons,  and  memoirs  of  the  times  of 
the  Stuarts  and  Cromwell — "from  the  manly  testimonies  of  Ludlow  to  the  crude 
excrescences  of  Goodwin  and  Hugh  Peters"  (JIIom,  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.  1st  Ser.,  VIII. 
283). 


12  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

man  of  Westborough,  Massachusetts,  who  went  when  he  could 
to  the  ministerial  convention  of  Boston  and  rode  to  Lexington 
to  hear  Jonas  Clarke  preach.  He  speaks  in  his  diary  of  reading 
Dr.  Scott's  Sermons,  Lord  Chesterfield's  Letters,  a  sermon  by 
Mr.  Flavel, — an  author  often  referred  to  by  others, — Bacon's 
Advancement  of  Learning,  Lord  Somers  on  Government, 
Montesquieu,  whose  Spirit  of  Laws  he  bought  in  1765,  a  ser- 
mon of  1779  by  Israel  Evans,  Dr.  Swift,  The  Scotch  Scourge, 
Hutchinson's  History  of  Massachusetts,  and,  just  before  his 
sermon  on  the  Stamp  Act  preached  early  in  September  of  1765, 
"Bp.  Hoadley's  Measure  of  Submissn.  to  ye  civil  Magistrate." 
After  reading  Hoadly,  Parkman  wrote  that  he  was  "prepard,  on 
y*.  Subject."20 

Illustrations  might  be  multiplied,  but  enough  have  been  given 
to  show  something  of  the  extent  and  variety  of  the  sources 
from  which  the  ministers  drew  their  theories.  It  must  not  be 
forgotten,  in  the  multiplicity  of  authors  mentioned,  that  the 
source  of  greatest  authority  and  the  one  most  commonly  used 
was  the  Bible.  The  New  England  preacher  drew  his  beliefs 
largely  from  the  Bible,  which  was  to  him  a  sacred  book,  infal- 
lible, God's  will  for  man.  Of  necessity  it  colored  his  political 
thinking.  His  conception  of  God,  of  God's  law,  and  of  God's 
relation  to  man  determined  to  a  large  extent  his  conception  of 
human  law  and  of  man's  relation  to  his  fellows.  If  his  ideas 
of  government  and  the  rights  of  man  were  in  part  derived  from 
other  sources,  they  were  strengthened  and  sanctioned  by  Holy 
Writ.  This  was  of  course  especially  true  of  the  clergy.  They 
stood  before  the  people  as  interpreters  of  God's  will.  Their  polit- 
ical speeches  were  sermons,  their  political  slogans  were  often 
Bible  texts.  What  they  taught  of  government  had  about  it  the 
authority  of  the  divine.  To  understand,  therefore,  something 
of  the  source  and  strength  of  their  political  faith  and  its  influ- 
ence upon  those  whom  they  taught,  it  is  essential  to  review 
briefly  certain  of  their  theological  doctrines  and  also  their  eccle- 
siastical polity. 

26  Parkman's  Diary  was  printed  in  1899.  See  Bibliography.  The  Dr.  Scott  re- 
ferred to  might  have  been  Dr.  John  Scott,  whose  sermons  and  other  works  were 
pub.  in  1718,  a  later  Dr.  John  Scott,  whose  work  on  Genesis  appeared  in  17S3,  or 
a  Dr.  Thomas  Scott  of  the  17th  century,  who  wrote  political  tracts  which  brought 
him  into  conflict  with  the  government.  The  Mr.  Flavel  was  John  Flavel,  a  non- 
conformist minister  whose  works  went  through  many  editions,  the  first  appearing 
in   1701. 


Chapter  II 

THE  LEGALISM  OF  THEOLOGY  AND 
CHURCH  POLITY 

"God  having  made  Man  a  Rational  Creature,  hath  (as  it 
were)  Twisted  Law  into  the  very  Frame  and  Constitution  of 
his  Soul.  .  .  ."i 

Some  such  belief  as  this  axiom  of  Timothy  Cutler  seems  to 
have  lain  deep  in  the  mind  of  the  New  England  Puritans.  They 
were  legally-minded  men.  Their  theology  and  church  polity 
were  legalistic  and  had  a  large  share  in  determining  the  char- 
acter of  their  political  thinking.  The  law  of  God  did  not  concern 
religious  and  ecclesiastical  matters  alone,  but  affected  politics 
as  well. 

They  conceived  the  universe  to  be  a  great  kingdom  whose 
sovereign  was  God,  whose  relations  with  His  Son  and  with  men 
were  determined  by  covenant  or  compact,  "covenant-constitu- 
tions", which  were  always  conditional  and  implied  strict  obli- 
gations on  each  side.2  God  had  made  a  covenant  of  works  with 
Adam  and  Eve,  who  wilfully  broke  it.  Then  in  His  mercy  He 
made  a  second  covenant  of  grace  "ordaining  the  Lord  Jesus 
.  .  .  according  to  a  covenant  made  between  them  both,  to  be 
mediator  between  God  and   Man."3  This  covenant  made  by 

1  Timothy  Cutler,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1717,  p.  IS.  Cutler  was  minister 
of  Stratford,  Connecticut.  See  also  Colman,  Sermons,  1717,  p.  94.  The  election, 
artillery,  convention  and  other  sermons  were  sometimes  printed  under  a  special  title, 
sometimes  simply  as  Election  or  Convention  Sermon.  In  this  and  the  following  foot- 
notes, italics  are  not  used  unless  a  definite  title  is  given.  Because  of  the  number  and 
length  of  the  footnotes  it  has  seemed  best  at  times  to  give  only  the  name  of  the 
author  and  the  pages  referred  to,  if  the  meaning  is  obvious.  For  full  names  and 
titles,  see  Bibliography. 

2  J.  Cleaveland,  An  Essay  to  defend  .  .  .  ,  pp.  18-19.  Also  S.  Willard,  Sermons, 
1682,  pp.  172,  185;  1699,  pp.  35,  418;  Confession  of  Faith  of  Massachusetts  Churches, 
1680,  pp.  246-47  in  1772  ed. ;  Colman,  Sermons,  1717,  p.  108;  Dunbar,  Mass- 
achusetts Election  Sermon,  1760,  pp.  20-21;  Wakeman,  Connecticut  Election  Ser- 
mon, 1685,  p.  16.  Baptists  were  at  one  with  Congregationalists  in  this  matter.  The 
Presbyterians  did  not  always  agree  with  the  Congregationalists  concerning  cove- 
nants. The  church  covenants  were  not  always  considered  necessary  and,  although 
they  believed  in  God's  covenant  with  man,  not  all  of  them  believed  that  the  con- 
sent of  man  was  necessary  to  make  it  binding.  God  made  the  covenant  and  man's 
consent  was  required.  It  was  binding  not  merely  because  of  consent  but  because  of 
God's  authority.   N.   Whitaker,    Confutation  .  .  .  ,    1774,  pp.    12-17. 

3  Confession  of  Faith  of  Massachusetts  Churches,  1680,  pp.  245-47  (1772  edition). 
This  was  frequently  the  topic  of  sermons.  See  Mayhew,  Sermons,  1748,  pp.  147-48; 
Sermons,  1755,  p.  102;  Davenport,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1669,  p.  3;  J. 
Barnard,    Convention   Sermon,    1738,   pp.    18-19. 

[13] 


14  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

Christ  with  His  Father  was  entirely  voluntary,  a  compact  made 
between  them  in  council.4  By  it,  salvation  was  promised  to  men 
in  return  for  faith  in  the  Christ.  Christ,  by  His  sacrifice,  paid 
the  penalty  for  a  broken  covenant  which  a  just  God,  who  ruled 
by  law,  could  not  but  demand.  In  return,  God  gave  into  the 
hands  of  His  Son,  as  His  delegate,  the  government  of  the 
world.5  This  conception  of  a  covenant  or  compact  as  the  found- 
ation of  divine  and  human  relations  is  of  basic  importance  in 
New  England  thought. 

God,  the  Sovereign,  was  also  a  law  giver.  He  had  established 
laws  for  his  people,  "perfectly  wise,  just  and  good,"  which  were 
"founded  upon  the  Nature  and  Relation  of  Things,  and  are  of 
universal  and  perpetual  Obligation.  .  .  .  Immovable  as  the 
Mountains  and  Immutable  as  God  himself."6  And  Christ  also 
gave  laws  to  His  subjects,  determined  the  form  His  church 
should  take,  and  commissioned  His  officers.7 

To  the  New  Englander  this  divine  law  became  a  "divine  con- 
stitution",8 a  fixed,  fundamental  law,  sacred  and  inviolable. 
Throughout  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  it  was  a 
frequent  theme  of  discussion,  and  to  determine  its  nature  and 
meaning  and  to  make  it  clear  to  their  people  was  one  of  the 
chief  aims  of  the  clergy.  They  conceived  of  it  as  three- fold, 
including  the  law  of  nature,  the  law  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
the  law  of  Christ. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  features  of  the  sermons  and 
pamphlets  before  1763,  as  well  as  afterwards,  is  the  treatment 

4  Typical  are  the  words  of  Samuel  Belcher,  "that  blessed  compact  which  passed 
between  the  Father  and  Son,  when  the  Terms  of  Man's  Redemption  were  agreed 
upon,   in  the  Council  of  God"    (Massachusetts   Election   Sermon,   1707,  p.    12). 

5  Pemberton,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1710,  p.  53:  "He  had  lay'd  this 
Government  on  the  Shoulders  of  His  Only  Son,  who  is  the  Man  upon  the  Throne 
above  the  Firmament,  according  to  whose  direction  the  Wheels  and  Living  Creatures 
move  below.  Now  God  has  made  him  Head  over  all  things  for  the  Church  .  .  .'' 
See  J.  Cott'on,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Church,  2nd  ed.,  1643,  pp.  8-9. 

6  Appleton,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1742,  pp.  11-13.  This  belief  was  ex- 
pressed repeatedly  in  the  sermons  of  the  17th  and  18th  centuries.  Cf.  Pember- 
ton's  Election  Sermon,  1710,  p.  28;  Burnham's  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1722, 
p.  12;  Hancock's  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1722,  pp.  3,  5;  Mayhew's  Ser- 
mons, 17S5,  p.  314;  Ezra  Stiles'  Installation  Address,  1770,  p.  22. 

7  Woodbridge,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1727,  pp.  16-17.  T.  Barnard,  Con- 
vention Sermon,  1738,  pp.  17,  22,  25.  The  whole  sermon  is  on  Christ  "the  only, 
and  Supream  Head  of  the  Church".  The  term  "divine  lawgiver,"  was  often  used  by 
the  clergy  both  of  God  and  Christ,  and  there  were  continual  references  to  His  right 
to   govern  and  to   His   laws. 

8  This  was  a  common  phrase  of  the  ministers.  Certain  laymen  also  used  this  or 
similar  phrases.  Examples:  T.  Barnard,  Artillery  Sermon,  1758,  p.  7;  "Remarks" 
of  Layman  on  Pres.  Clap's  "Brief  History  and  Vindication  .  .  .",  1757,  p.  59; 
Tucker,    Convention    Sermon,    1768. 


The  Legalism  of  Theology  and  Church  Polity  15 

of  the  law  of  nature.  By  this  is  meant  the  general  principles  of 
justice  and  equity  under  which  men  were  conceived  to  have 
lived  before  the  founding  of  any  society  or  civil  state  and  which 
gave  men  therefore  their  so  called  "natural  rights".  This  law 
had  been  planted  by  God  deep  in  the  hearts  of  men,  "written 
as  with  a  pen  of  iron  and  the  point  of  a  diamond",  before  the 
fuller  revelation  of  the  written  law,  and  was  still  to  be  found 
there.9  There  seems  little  evidence  that  the  clergy,  at  least, 
thought  of  it  as  distinct  from  the  law  of  God.  Rather  it  gained 
greater  force  as  a  part  of  God's  law.  Thus  in  1669  John  Daven- 
port in  his  Election  Sermon  said,  "the  Law  of  Nature  is  God's 
law."10  Again  and  again  the  clergy  made  this  assertion  and 
clearly  regarded  the  laws  of  nature  as  sacredly  and  legally  bind- 
ing as  any  other  part  of  the  divine  law.  Samuel  Hall  in  his 
Connecticut  Election  Sermon  of  1746  put  it  thus:  "I  think 
there  can  be  no  doubt  about  this ;  but  that  in  all  cases  where 
the  matter  under  Determination  appertains  to  natural  Right, 
the  Cause  is  God's  Cause."11  John  Barnard  in  his  Massachusetts 
Election  Sermon  of  1734  phrased  it  somewhat  differently  but 
with  equal  assurance:  "This  Voice  of  Nature  is  the  Voice  of 
God.  Thus  'tis  that  vox  populi  est  vox  Dei."12 

This  law  of  nature  was  an  unwritten  law.  The  revelation  in 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  helped  to  make  clear  the  law 
of  nature  and  to  disclose  its  full  extent.13  In  the  Old  Testa- 
ment God  gave  to  man  a  "positive  law."  It  was  true  that  some 
of  its  statutes  applied  to  the  Jews  only,  but  there  were  also 
great  moral  principles  which  applied  to  all  phases  of  man's 
activity,  now  as  formerly,  and  were  equally  binding.  Thus  even 
in  that  part  of  Old  Testament  law  which  no  longer  applied  to 

9  Mayhew,  Sermons,   1755,   p.   258. 

10  Davenport,   Massachusetts   Election  Sermon,   1669,  p.   4. 

11  Hall,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,   1746,  p.  8. 

12  Barnard,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  p.  9.  See  Bulkley's  Connecticut 
Election  Sermon,  1713,  p.  29.  Home's  Proposals  of  Some  Things,  p.  11;  Bellamy's 
The  Law  our  School-Master,   p.    37;    Mayhew's  Sermons,   1755,   p.   262. 

13  Peter  Clark,  Convention  Sermon,  1745,  p.  23.  See  Woodbridge's  Connecticut 
Election  Sermon,  1752,  pp.  10-11,  and  Williams'  Connecticut  Election  Sermon  of 
1741,  p.  18.  Williams  says  "There  never  was,  nor  can  be  any  Wisdom  among 
men,  but  what  is  communicated  from  God;  nor  is  there  any  Law  of  Nature,  or 
Rule  of  Natural  and  Moral  wisdom,  which  we  speak  of,  as  implanted  in  the  Mind 
of  man,  but  what  is  found  in  the  Bible,  and  cultivated  and  improved  by  that 
Revelation  .  .   ." 


16  The  Nezv  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

Christians  and  in  the  history  of  God's  dealings  with  His  chosen 
people  there  were  many  examples  for  men  of  today.14 

In  the  New  Testament  were  the  special  laws  made  by  Christ 
for  His  followers  and  His  church.  These  did  not  in  any  way 
contradict  the  great  laws  of  nature  and  the  moral  laws  of  the 
Old  Dispensation ;  rather  they  fulfilled  them,  but  they  did  away 
with  the  exacting  religious  regulations  which  had  bound  the 
Jews  so  closely.  It  was  Christ,  entrusted  by  His  Father  with 
government  over  men,  who  was  the  great  legislator  for  Chris- 
tians.15 In  His  Gospel  were  laws  binding  upon  a  Christian 
which  were  not  included  in  the  natural  law.16  Here  was  to  be 
found  the  "perfect  law  of  liberty".  Just  what  was  meant  by  this 
Christian  liberty  was  a  matter  of  the  greatest  moment  and 
among  both  clergy  and  laymen  there  was  often  a  difference  of 
opinion,  but  as  men's  conception  of  their  rights  broadened  so 
did  their  interpretation  of  the  phrase.  Whatever  it  included, 
those  liberties  were  sacred,  a  part  of  the  "divine  constitution". 

This  law  of  God,  natural  and  written,  was  not  only  moral 
but  also  rational,  and  God  expected  obedience  not  so  much 
because  of  His  authority  as  because  of  its  reasonableness  and 
the  benefits  to  be  derived  therefrom.17  The  good  of  His  people 
and  the  rights  of  men  were  the  end  of  His  government  and  His 
law  was  framed  with  that  in  view.18  God,  it  was  true,  was  an 

14  Appleton,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1742,  pp.  11-13,  49.  The  moral 
law  of  the.  Old  Testament  lays  down  such  rules  of  justice  and  truth  and  goodness 
"as  are  a  sufficient  Directory  for  us  in  every  Station  of  Life,  whether  private  or 
public,  whether  in  natural,  civil,  or  sacred  Authority  .  .  .  These  are  the  judgments 
of  God  that  are  given  to  us  as  well  as  unto  the  Nation  of  Israel."  Cutler,  Con- 
necticut Election  Sermon,  1717,  p.  17:  "The  Religious  Laws  of  that  People  as  in 
Contradistinction  to  the  Laws  of  Christianity,  are  Ceased,  we  have  a  more  Per- 
fect Institution  now.  The  Moral  stand  in  full  Force  and  Obligation  on  us  to  Ob- 
serve them.  The  Political  Deserve  the  greatest  Reverence,  as  the  Result  of  Per- 
fect Wisdom  and  Rectitude;  and  are  most  Reasonable  to  be  Observed  by  us 
where  our  Circumstances   Run  Parallel  with  theirs." 

15  N.  Eells,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1748,  p.  25;  Mayhew,  Sermons,  1755, 
pp.  258-59.  Two  other  sermons  speak  of  Christ  as  having  a  "natural  right"  to 
the  government  of  men,  as  a  result'  of  His  covenant  with  God  (Woodbridge's  Con- 
necticut Election  Sermon,  1724,  p.  3,  and  Webb's  Massachusetts  Election  Ser- 
mon, 1738,  p.   5). 

16  Mayhew,   Sermons,    1755,   pp.   260-64. 

17  Woodbridge,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1727,  p.  2;  Colton,  Connecticut 
Election   Sermon,   1736,  pp.   32-36,  esp.   p.   33. 

18  Colton,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1736,  p.  36;  J.  Bulkley,  Connecticut 
Election  Sermon,  1713,  pp.  30-32;  E.  Pemberton,  Massachusetts  Election  Ser- 
mon, 1710,  p.  53;  B.  Colman,  Sermons,  1717,  p.  94;  Webb,  Massachusetts  Election 
Sermon,  1738,  p.  18;  J.  Allen,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1744,  the  "Good  of 
His  subjects  is  the  very   end  of   Christ's  government  over   us",   pp.   28-29. 


The  Legalism  of  Theology  and  Church  Polity  17 

absolute,  all  powerful  sovereign.  Even  the  unorthodox  Mayhew 
declared  that  "No  one  but  God,  has  an  absolute,  unlimited 
authority  over  us."19  But  nevertheless  God  did  not  act  in  an 
arbitrary  and  unjust  fashion.  He  could  not.  The  very  nature  of 
God  forbade  it,  He  was  Himself  perfect  and  His  every  act 
must  be  perfectly  just.  Indeed,  it  was  from  this  excellency  of 
His  nature  that  His  fitness  and  His  right  to  govern  the  world 
were  evident.20  The  laws  of  nature  and  the  revealed  law,  being 
God's  law,  were  expressions  of  this  perfection  and  God,  by  His 
very  nature,  was  bound  by  them.  Thus  God  by  the  perfection 
of  His  own  being  was  limited  by  inviolable  law.21  "God  himself 
(with  reverence  be  it  spoken)  cannot  punish  his  own  creatures 
without  a  law  broken."22 

This  conception  of  a  moral  God  self-limited  does  not  seem 
to  be  confined  to  those  who  denied  predestination  and  who 
believed  in  the  free  will  of  men.  So  strict  a  Calvinist  as  John 
Cleaveland,  of  Ipswich,  declared  that  "the  law  must  be  a  tran- 
script of  God's  moral  nature,  it  must  at  least,  be  just,  holy  and 
good;  it  must  be  very  pure;  it  must  be  perfect."23  After  the 
Great  Awakening  and  the  work  of  Jonathan  Edwards  had  wid- 
ened and  defined  the  breach  between  strict  Calvinists  and 
Arminians,  it  is  true  that  the  former  accused  the  latter  of 
denying  the  absolute  sovereignty  of  God  and  of  vilifying  the 
holy  law.  They  themselves  so  "magnified  the  Law"  that  they 
believed  God  could  not  forgive  Adam  who  had  transgressed  the 
law  and  broken  the  covenant,  nor  his  descendants  who  shared 

19  Mayhew,  Sermons,  1755,  pp.   313-14. 

20  W.  Williams,  Massachusetts   Election   Sermon,  1719,   p.   10. 

21 G.  Bulkeley,  Will  and  Doom,  1692,  Preface,  pp.  94-95;  J.  Bulkley,  Connecti- 
cut Election  Sermon,  1713,  p.  17:  "the  Divine  Government  is  managed  by  fixed 
and  steady  Rules."  Pemberton,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1710,  p.  29:  "He 
governs  not  by  unaccountable  Will  or  inconstant  humour,  which  are  imperfections 
his  Nature  can't  suffer,  but  by  Stable  Measures,  as  may  best  suit  the  Nature 
and  Circumstances  of  the  Subjects  and  the  noble  End  of  his  Government."  See 
also  Williams,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1719,  p.  10;  Colton,  Connecticut 
Election  Sermon,  1736,  pp.  32-33;  Chauncey,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1719, 
p.  20;  Webb,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1738,  p.  14;  Stiles,  Installation  Ad- 
dress, 1770,  pp.  10-11;  Jesus  also  governed  His  church  by  the  "strictest  Rules  of 
Justice  and  Righteousness."  Mayhew,  Sermons,  1748,  pp.  13,  96-97;  Result  of  a 
Council  of  Consociated  Churches  at  Windham,  1747,  p.  6;  He  "always  acts  and 
disposes  of  all  Things  according  to  the  strict  Rules  of  infinite  and  inviolable  Jus- 
tice." 

22  G.  Bulkeley,  Will  and  Doom,  1692,  Preface,  p.  94;  see  also  B.  Colton,  Con- 
necticut  Election   Sermon,    1736,  pp.    32-33. 

23  J.   Cleaveland,  An  Essay  answering  Mayhew,   1763,  p.   25. 


18  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

his  guilt,  without  the  penalty  being  paid  in  full.24  "The  punish- 
ment of  sin  cannot  be  remitted  without  shaking  the  pillars  of  the 
universe.  .  .  .  The  earth  and  sublunary  heavens  may  pass 
away,  but  the  law  shall  not  pass  away,  till  the  whole  be 
fulfilled."25 

The  Arminians,  of  whom  Mayhew  was  perhaps  the  most 
extreme,  could  not  accept  this  strained  and  distorted  legalism 
but  they  assuredly  did  not  deny  God's  absolute  sovereignty.26 
Nor  did  the  Calvinists  believe  God  other  than  perfectly  moral 
and  just,  unable  by  His  very  justice  and  perfect  morality  to 
make  any  but  just  and  perfect  laws.  Mayhew  in  1750  only 
expressed  more  directly  the  views  of  earlier  orthodox  clergy- 
men when  he  declared:  "God  himself  does  not  govern  in  an 
absolute  arbitrary  and  despotic  manner.  The  Power  of  this 
almighty  King  is  limited  by  law — by  the  eternal  laws  of  truth, 
wisdom,  and  equity,  and  the  everlasting  tables  of  right 
reason."27  Both  Calvinist  and  Arminian,  then,  believed  in  a 
divine  law,  a  fundamental  constitution,  which  was  binding  upon 
God  and  man.  In  this,  long  before  1760,  they  included  the 
so-called  laws  of  nature  as  well  as  Christ's  "law  of  liberty". 

24  Adam's  descendants  were  legally  accounted  sinners  because  their  persons 
were  legally  in  him,  as  the  person  of  the  debtor  is  in  the  surety,  or  the  person  of 
the  prince  is  in  the  ambassador  (Cleaveland,  An  Essay  to  defend,  etc.,  p.  104, 
note  quoted   from   Dr.   Wigglesworth). 

25  E.  Stiles,  Installation  Address,  1770,  p.  36.  See  also  B.  Colman,  Sermons, 
1717,  p.  108,  and  Cleaveland,  An  Essay  to  defend,  p.  104,  note. 

20  See   Mayhew's   own  words,   p.    32. 

27  Mayhew,  Sermon,  1750,  in  Thornton,  p.  81.  This  becomes  still  clearer  from 
the  analogies  drawn  between  civil  and  divine  government.  Later  sermons,  after 
1763,  voiced  the  same  conviction.  Doubtless  there  were  those  who  admitted  God's 
theoretical  power  to  act  unjustly  and  to  enforce  submission,  if  He  would,  but 
believed  Him  so  perfect  as  to  render  such  an  act  on  His  part  impossible.  See 
Stiles,  Installation  Address,   1770,   p.  22. 

That  before  1760  there  was  discussion  among  the  clergy  concerning  the  exis- 
tence of  laws  of  nature  outside  God's  jurisdiction  is  evident  from  the  following 
from  a  sermon  by  Nathaniel  Potter,  of  Brookline,  preached  in  17S8,  p.  11:  "But 
admitting  (what  is  contrary  to  Scripture,  Reason,  and  the  Common  Sense  of 
Mankind,  and  involves  in  it  an  Idea  of  God,  utterly  unworthy  a  wise  and  good 
Governor)  that  the  whole  Frame  of  Nature  is  ruled  and  managed  by  certain  in 
variable   Laws   which  omnipotence   itself    cannot   enforce   or   suspend." 

Adams  in  The  Founding  of  New  England,  p.  77,  says  that  the  pivot  of  the 
Puritan's  creed  was  the  absolutely  unconditioned  will  of  God,  and  in  Revolution- 
ary New  England,  p.  170,  attributes  to  the  Arminians  the  doctrine  of  His  self- 
limitation  in  dealing  with  free  agents.  That  the  two  were  not  deemed  incom- 
patible is  evident  from  Mayhew's  words  given  above  and  on  p.  32,  and  from 
Gershom  Bulkley's  preface  to  his  Will  and  Doom,  1692.  On  p.  93  he  says,  "That 
absolute  and  unlimited  sovereignty  to  do  and  command  what  he  will,  because  he 
will,  and  to  be  obeyed  without  reserve,  is  the  incommunicable  right  and  preroga- 
tive of  Jehovah,"  and  on  p.  94:  "Laws  are  essential  to  government.  God  himself 
(with  reverence  be  it  spoken)  cannot  punish  his  own  creature  without  a  law 
broken  .  .  .  He  that  governs  without  or  against  law  arrogates  a  higher  preroga- 
tive than  God  doth." 


The  Legalism  of  Theology  and  Church  Polity  19 

The  significance  of  the  belief  in  the  binding  character  of  law 
upon  God  and  man  seems  to  have  escaped  many  who  write  of 
the  Revolutionary  philosophy.  It  is  fundamental  to  any  under- 
standing of  American  constitutional  thought.  God's  govern- 
ment is  founded  on  and  limited  by  law  and  therefore  all  human 
governments  must  be  so  founded  and  limited,  if  patterned  after 
His.  A  government,  therefore,  which  exercises  its  authority 
unconstitutionally  acts  illegally.  Here  is  one  great  source  of  the 
American  doctrine  of  government  by  law. 

This  legalistic  conception  was  also  dominant  in  matters  of 
church  government,  although  there  was  a  greater  diversity  of 
opinion  and  practice  than  in  doctrine.  All  believed,  indeed,  that 
the  way  intended  by  Christ  was  shown  in  His  gospel  and  was 
a  part  of  the  law  established  for  His  churches ;  but  men  did  not 
interpret  the  gospel  alike,  and  the  different  opinions  caused 
constant  and  often  bitter  discussion.  In  these  controversies 
clergymen  and  laymen  shared;  and,  however  trivial  and  futile 
their  discussion  may  seem  to  us  today,  they  assuredly  were  the 
occasion  of  long  arguments  on  government,  liberty,  and  the 
rights  of  men.28  Here  also,  as  in  sermons  on  the  "divine  con- 
stitution", inferences  were  often  made  concerning  the  nature 
of  civil  government,  and  analogies  were  drawn. 

Both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  and  even  the  light  of 
nature  were  searched  for  precedents  and  arguments.  The  Con- 
gregationalists  and  Baptists  who  made  up  perhaps  four-fifths 
of  church-going  New  England  believed  that  the  church  could 
only  exist  by  covenant,  a  sacred  and  binding  agreement  or  com- 
pact made  by  the  members  with  each  other  and  with  God. 
Everywhere  they  found  precedents  for  this  method.  The  Old 
Testament  gave  them  many  examples ;  the  "light  of  nature", 
to  which  men  turned  in  the  seventeenth  as  in  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, showed,  so  they  believed,  that  the  only  way  in  which  men 
could  be  joined  into  one  body  was  by  covenant.  In  the  New 
Testament  there  were  passages  which  they  interpreted  in  the 
same  fashion.  In  forming  a  church,  therefore,  the  members 
voluntarily  covenanted  with  God  and  with  one  another  and  be- 
lieved that  only  so  could  they  be  given  power  eventually  one 
over  the  other.29  The  church  so  constituted  became  "as  a  city 

28  For  further  details,  see  Chaps.  V-VII. 

29  J.  Cotton,  The  Way  of  the  Churches,  1645,  pp.  2-4,  61-64;  I.  Backus,  Truth 
is  great,  p.    33,   note;   Platform  of   Church  Discipline,    1648,   chap,   iv;    I.    Mather, 


20  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

compacted  together",  a  new  body  with  rights  of  self-govern- 
ment, a  new  organism  formed  by  the  joining  together  of  all  the 
members  by  free  consent.30 

It  seems  also  to  have  been  the  custom  for  the  minister  to 
enter  into  a  covenant  with  his  people,  which  was  binding  unless 
dissolved  by  mutual  consent.31  These  covenants  were  sacred  and 
binding  and  to  break  them  was  a  serious  offense.  Their  nature 
and  their  sanctity  were  the  constant  theme  of  the  clergy  for 
more  than  a  hundred  years  before  the  Revolution.  If  a  man  had 
any  confidence  in  his  minister's  ability  and  in  the  truth  of  his 
teaching,  he  must  have  become  convinced  that  voluntary,  con- 
ditional, binding  compact  lay  at  the  bottom  of  the  most  impor- 
tant relations  of  men.32 

The  church  members,  thus  joined  together,  had  power  to 
choose  their  own  officers,33  to  whom  they  were  then  willing  to 

A  Disquisition  concerning  Ecclesiastical  Councils,  1716,  p.  5;  J.  Barnard,  Convention 
Sermon,  1738,  pp.  10-11;  J.  Davenport,  The  Power  of  the  Congregational  Churches, 
1672,  p.  35:  This  voluntary  covenant  "is  the  strong  knitting  glew  whereby  persons 
are  joyned  together  in  all  such  voluntary  relations."  Dexter,  Congregationalism, 
what  it  is,  p.  S,  says  Baptists  were  purely  Congregational  in  principles  of  church 
order  and  government;  and  Backus,  in  Truth  is  great,  p.  33,  note,  says:  "Govern- 
ment in  church,  as  state,  is  founded  in  compact  or  covenant,  implied  or  expressed; 
and  they  are  equally  binding  upon  officers  and  privates  to  act  towards  each  other 
according  to  the  nature  of  the  compact,  as  far  as  their  ability  and  opportunity 
will  admit  of." 

Certain  of  the  Presbyterians  did  not  consider  this  covenant  necessary.  Whit- 
aker,  Confutations,  1774,  pp.  12-17,  says  this  implies  that  the  consent  of  the  peo- 
pie  is  necessary  to  Christ's  authority.  He  declares  men  are  bound  to  accept  God's 
covenant,  not  by  their  free  consent,  but  by  God's  authority.  Man's  refusal  is  "high 
rebellion".  This  difference  does  not  seem  to  have  been  general.  Some  Presbyterian 
churches  signed  covenants.  The  chief  difference  was  in  the  power  given  to  Synods. 

30  Davenport,  Power  of  the  Congregational  Churches,  p.  37;  Platform  of  Church 
Discipline,  chap,  iv,  sect.  3;  Hooker,  Survey  of  the  Summe  of  Church  Discipline, 
p.  46;  Answer  of  Elders  and  Messengers,  1662,  pp.  75,  113-14;  J.  Barnard,  Con- 
vention Sermon,  1738,  pp.  10,  12.  Cf.  Wise,   Vindication,   1717,  p.   17. 

81  Sprague,  I.  719.  Illustrations  are  numerous;  e.g.  in  Eccles.  Papers,  VII,  no. 
263  a,  no.  268;  VIII,  44  a  (C.   S.  L.)  ;  MS  Letter  from  E.  Wheelock,   1759. 

The  ecclesiastical  records  of  Mass.  and  Conn,  give  instances  of  the  difficulties  that 
occasionally  arose  in  consequence.  If  a  pastor  left  his  people  without  their  con- 
sent it  was  looked  upon  as  breaking  the  compact  and  was  considered  a  great 
grievance,  no  doubt  partly  because  it  meant  paying  out  a  fairly  large  sum  of 
money  to  settle  a  new  pastor.  On  the  other  hand,  the  church  and  parish  might 
vote  his  dismissal  but  he  did  not  have  to  leave  unless  he  concurred.  Councils  were 
often  called  and  sometimes  the  Assembly  was  petitioned.  If  a  man  were  dismissed 
for  delinquency  it  was  not  violation  of  contract,  but  was  allowed  in  the  Platform. 
There  was   much   controversy  over  authority  of  Council  in   such   a   matter. 

82  For  the  attitude  toward  social  compact,  see  chap.  iv.  For  examples  of  various 
kinds  of  covenant,  see  Appendix. 

83  J.  Cotton,  Way  of  the  Churches,  p.  63 :  "That  Christian  libertie  which  the 
Lord  Jesus  by  His  bloud  hath  purchased  for  His  Church,  and  for  all  His  children, 
giveth  them  all  libertie  to  choose  their  owne  Officers,  and  their  owne  fellow-Mem- 
bers ..."  I.  A.  Mather,  A  Disquisition,  pp.  5-6;  J.  Barnard,  Convention  Ser- 
mon, 1738,  pp.  11-12.  This  was  true  of  all  but  Episcopalians,  and  sometimes  of 
them  in  America  for  lack  of  bishops. 


The  Legalism  of  Theology  and  Church  Polity  21 

submit,  but  "in  case  of  manifest  un worthiness  and  delin- 
quency", they  had  "power  also  to  depose  them,  for,  to  open 
and  shut,  to  chuse  and  refuse,  to  constitute  in  office  and  remove 
from  office  are  acts  belonging  to  the  same  power."34  Sometimes 
a  controversy  arose  as  to  this  power  of  choice  and  dismissal 
and  then  the  reasons  pro  and  con  were  argued  at  great  length.35 
Always  the  right  was  maintained ;  it  was  officially  stated  in  the 
Cambridge  Platform  of  1648  and  was  jealously  guarded  by 
those  churches  which  adhered  to  the  Platform  and  as  jealously 
by  many  of  the  clergy.  In  the  churches  which  clung  to  the  "Con- 
gregational Way"  the  power  of  action  both  in  choosing  officers 
and  in  transacting  all  business  lay  with  the  majority,  and  the 
equality  of  all  members  was  recognized.  Though  the  advice  of 
a  council  might  be  asked  and  accepted,  there  was  no  legal  appeal 
to  an  authority  higher  than  the  individual  church.36  On  the 
other  hand,  the  churches  which  inclined  toward  Presbyterianism 
gave  legal  authority  to  the  action  of  councils. 

On  these  questions  of  the  local  independence  of  the  churches, 
the  right  of  the  majority  to  rule,  the  amount  of  power  to  be 
given  to  the  church  "rulers",  the  relation  of  the  church  to  the 
state,  the  complete  freedom  of  judgment  in  matters  of  religion 
and  similar  problems,  there  arose  very  early  differences  of 
opinion  which  continued  more  or  less  throughout  the  entire 
colonial  period,  at  times  becoming  sharp  and  involving  laymen 
as  well  as  ministers.  It  is  not  my  intention  to  discuss  these  con- 
troversies except  in  so  far  as  they  brought  forth  arguments 
which  bore  upon  the  political  thinking  of  the  time  or  as  they 
illustrate  the  application  of  theories  of  government.  Certain  of 
them  will  be  mentioned  in  later  chapters. 

34  Platform    of    Church    Discipline,    1648,    p.     206;     Dexter,     Congregationalism, 
What  it  is,  pp.    2-3. 

35  See  Chapters  V,  VI. 

2B  Dexter,  Congregationalism,  p.   3.  See  also  Chapters  V  and  VII. 


Chapter  III 
CONCEPTS  OF  GOVERNMENT 

"The  Original  of  Government  is  Divine.  It  is  from  God,  by 
His  Sovereign  Constitution  and  Appointment."1  Thus  wrote  in 
the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century  one  Ebenezer  Pember- 
ton  of  Boston.  Fifty  years  later  the  same  sentiment  was  reiter- 
ated by  another  divine  when  he  said :  "Liberty  both  civil  and 
religious  is  the  spirit  and  genius  of  the  sacred  writings."2 

Long  before  1763  the  New  England  clergy  had  developed 
and  taught  an  elaborate  theory  of  government.  As  they  founded 
their  theology  and  church  polity  upon  the  law  of  God  as  revealed 
in  the  natural  law  and  the  written  word,  so  from  the  law  of  God 
they  developed  their  political  theories.  They  read  histories, 
ancient  and  modern,  pored  over  commentaries  and  studied  the 
works  of  philosophers  when  they  could  get  them,  but  even  the 
most  learned  turned  to  the  infallible  Scripture  to  learn  what 
God  intended  government  should  be.  Men  might  and  did  differ 
as  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  but  its  authority  they  never 
questioned.  Through  constant  reiteration  and  reinterpretation 
certain  ideas  and  texts,  from  time  to  time  filled  with  new  mean- 
ing as  men's  thinking  broadened,  became  unwritten  principles 
of  government. 

Civil  government,  so  the  clergy  taught,  was  of  divine  origin. 
Sometimes  they  founded  their  arguments  on  reason  or  the  light 
and  law  of  nature,  sometimes  on  the  Bible,  sometimes  on  both, 
but  it  amounted  to  the  same  thing  in  the  end.  It  was  ordained 
of  God,3  and  its  purpose,  like  the  government  of  Christ  and  of 

1  Pemberton,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1710,  p.  11.  The  whole  sermon 
is  on  government   and    its    divine   original. 

2  B.   Stevens,   Massachusetts    Election   Sermon,   1761,   p.    8. 

3  J.  Davenport,  A  Discourse  about  Civil  Government,  1663,  p.  6;  Massachusetts 
Election  Sermon,  1669,  p.  4:  "Power  of  Civil  Rule,  by  men  orderly  chosen,  is  God's 
Ordinance,  For  1.  It  is  from  the  Light  and  Law  of  Nature,  and  the  Law  of 
Nature  is  God's  Law.  2.  The  orderly  ruling  ot  men  over  men,  in  general,  is  from 
God,  in  its  root,  though  voluntary  in  the  manner  of  coalescing  ..."  J.  Bulkley, 
Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1713,  p.  13:  Religion  "Asserts  the  Divine  Original 
of  Government,  and  Founds  it  in  Divine  Institution,"  not  any  particular  form, 
but  government,  in  general;  p.  23:  "all  Civil  Power  is  a  Derivative,  comes  from 
God,  and  is  a  ray  of  His.  .  .  ."  Solomon  Williams,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon, 
1741,  p.  1:  Civil  government  of  divine  institution,  "all  the  just  measures,  Rules  and 
Maxims    of    its    Administrations    are    derived    from    the    same    source    which    is    the 

[22] 


Concepts  of  Government  23 

God  Himself,  was  the  good  of  the  people.4  Here  the  analogy 
between  theology  and  political  theory  is  very  close  and  very 
significant.  Even  the  most  conservative  of  the  clergy  ad- 
mitted it.  The  more  liberal  emphasized  it.  A  government 
which  did  not  have  the  good  of  the  people  at  heart  did 
not  have  the  sanction  of  God.  There  could  be  no  other  end 
whether  government  were  considered  as  a  divine  ordinance, 
instituted  indirectly  by  God  or  as  more  immediately  the  ordi- 
nance of  man,  founded  in  common  consent.5  Neither  God  nor 
man  had  any  other  purpose  in  founding  government.  This  was 
the  starting  point  for  the  necessity  of  law  and  order,  for  the 
limitations  upon  rulers,  and  for  the  inviolability  of  the  rights 
and  liberties  of  the  people.  From  it  sprang  the  argument,  iden- 
tical with  that  of  Locke,  that  governments  are  limited  by  the 
purpose  for  which  they  were  founded,  viz.  the  good  of  the  peo- 
ple. The  good  of  the  people  might  be  interpreted  variously,  but 
whatever  else  it  meant  it  assured  the  protection  of  their  natural 
rights.  Without  government  there  would  be  no  security  for 
those  rights  which  God  intended  man  to  enjoy,  no  assurance  of 
life,  good  order,  liberty,  and  prosperity.6 

fountain  of  that  Power  ..."  I  have  more  than  forty  such  references  before  1761 
and  many  thereafter.  There  are  many  others,  where,  if  not  definitely  stated,  the 
same   thing    is    implied. 

4  This  is  stated  in  very  many  of  the  sermons  and  pamphlets  read  and  in  many 
is  elaborated  and  applied.  A  few  quotations  are  given  below.  I  have  more  than 
thirty  such  before  1761.  After  1761  such  statements  are  very  numerous. — J.  Daven- 
port, A  Discourse  on  Civil  Government  in  a  new  Plantation,  1663,  p.  17:  "  .  .  .  the 
end  of  all  Civil  Government  &  Administrations  ...  is  the  publick  and  common 
Good  .  .  ."  Samuel  Whitman,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1714,  p.  32:  "You 
very  well  know  that  the  Publick  good  is  the  End  of  Government  ..."  A.  Mather, 
Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1725,  pp.  13-14:  "The  great  subordinate  End  is 
the  Publick  good;  the  Means  and  Laws  of  Government  must  be  calculated  to 
work  and  bring  about  that  End  &  Effect.  And  a  good  Ruler  knows  these  Maxims 
are  not  only  founded  in  Nature,  but  expressly  asserted  in  God's  Word:  .  .  .  All 
shall  be  Sacrificed  to  subserve  the  Publick."  Mather  quotes  Cicero  and  others  to 
this  effect.  N.  Appleton,  Funeral  Sermon  .  .  .  Preach'd  at  the  Publick  Lecture 
in  Boston,  17S7,  p.  18:  Government  was  instituted  by  God  for  the  good  of  man- 
kind. If  a  ruler  acts  selfishly  or  oppressively,  "He  acts  quite  contrary  to  the 
original  Design  of  Government  and  contrary  to  the  express  Will  of  Him  from 
whence  all  Power  and  Authority  are  derived."  Mayhew,  Massachusetts  Election 
Sermon,  17S4,  p.  6:  "After  the  glory  of  God  there  can  be  no  other  end  of 
government"  than  the  good  of  man,  the  common  benefit  of  society;  p.  8:  "The 
end  of  government,  then,  as  it  is  a  divine  ordinance,  must  be  human  felicity  .  .  . 
must  be  the  common  good  of  all,  and  of  every  individual,  so  far  as  consistent 
therewith  ..." 

5  Mayhew,    Massachusetts    Election    Sermon,   1754,    pp.    6-9. 

8  Typical  of  many  are  the  following:  Davenport,  A  Discourse  about  Civil  Govern- 
ment, 1663,  p.  17:  the  end  of  government  is  the  natural,  moral,  civil  and  spirit- 
ual good  of  men.  Belcher,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1701,  pp.  31-32:  with- 
out government  men  are  "in  a  state  of  war."  Hancock,  Massachusetts  Election  Ser- 
mon,   1722,    p.    7:    without   government',    the    world    is   a    chaos.    Samuel    Checkley, 


24 The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 


Except  in  the  case  of  the  Jews,  God  did  not  specify  the  par- 
ticular type  of  government  to  be  set  up.  Men  might  choose,  pro- 
vided always  that  the  type  chosen  answered  the  end  of  govern- 
ment and  was  not  inconsistent  with  the  divine  laws.7 

Civil  government,  though  ordained  by  God,  did  not  come 
immediately  from  Him,  but  mediately  through  the  people, 
Whatever  form  it  might  take,  the  clergy  almost  unanimously 
agreed  that  if  it  were  a  just  government  it  had  been  founded 
on  compact.8  This  compact  relationship  was  a  matter  of 
vital  importance  to  the  New  England  minister.  His  theology 
depended  upon  it,  it  was  the  foundation  of  his  church  govern- 
ment, he  believed  it  to  be  at  the  root  of  all  God's  dealings  with 
men.  When  he  searched  the  Bible  he  found,  so  he  believed, 
that  even  the  Jewish  government,  which  was  peculiarly  God's 
own,  rested  on  compact.  When  he  questioned  Reason  and 
Nature,  which  to  him  were  the  voice  of  God,  again  he  found 
the  compact  or  covenant.  When  he  read  the  wise  men  of  the 
past  and  of  his  own  day,  once  more  he  found  it.  When  he  looked 
at  his  own  environment  he  found  it  there.  The  charters  were 
considered  compacts,  and  when  men  set  up  new  towns  they 
drew  up  a  town  covenant.9  It  became  in  practical  experience 
the  only  way  to  form  a  corporate  body. 

Sermon,  1727,  p.  5:  without  government,  anarchy  and  confusion.  Jared  Eliot  in  his 
Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1738,  p.  31,  says  that  the  question  whether  civil 
government  "be  from  Fear  or  Love  of  Society,  or  from  both,  has  been  a  matter 
of  Dispute",  and  quotes  Rapin,  Puffendorf,  and  Locke. 

For  the  necessity  of  government  to  preserve  life,  liberty,  and  property,  typical 
references  may  be  found  in  the  Massachusetts  Election  Sermons  of  1710,  p.  16; 
1729,  p.  8;  1734,  p.  24;  1747,  p.  8;  1761,  pp.  54-55,  70-71;  in  the  Connecticut 
Election  Sermons  of  1712,  p.  9;  1752,  p.  23;  in  Williams'  A  Seasonable  Plea,  1744, 
p.  4.  See  also  later  references. 

7  Davenport,  The  Pozver  of  the  Congregational  Churches,  1663,  p.  129;  J.  Check- 
ley,  Sermon,  1727,  pp.  19-20;  Election  Sermons,  Pemberton,  1710,  pp.  12-14; 
Bulkley,  1713,  pp.  13-14;  Woodbridge,  1727,  pp.  19-20;  Barnard,  1734,  pp.  10-11; 
Allen,  1744,  pp.  25-26;  Phillips,  1750,  pp.  6-7;  Mayhew,  1754,  p.  4;  Haven,  1761, 
p.  8.  Some  preferred  and  believed  that  God  preferred  a  definite  kind  of  govern- 
ment. Gershom  Bulkeley,  a  Presbyterian  who  had  become  a  lawyer  and  justice 
and  who  opposed  the  independent  action  of  Conn,  during  the  Revolution  of  1688, 
declared  that  monarchy  was  the  best  type  {Will  and  Doom,  p.  93).  John  Wise, 
who  had  been  imprisoned  by  Andros  for  refusal  to  pay  taxes,  believed  in  dem- 
ocracy in  Church  and  state  {Vindication,  1717,  p.  39  of  1772  ed.).  Many  before 
1761  eulogized  the  British  government,  and  some  discussed  at  length  the  advantages 
of  a  mixed  or  balanced  government  of  the  British  type.  Many  declared  that  there 
was  no  reason  to  believe  that  God  preferred  monarchy  and  that  therefore  no  claim 
to  divine  right  or   hereditary  accession   could  be  based   upon  such   preference. 

8  A  few  did  not  believe  it.  Gershom  Bulkeley  in  1692  wrote  that  all  civil  au- 
thority came  directly  from  God,  that  the  king  of  England  was  the  fountain  of  all 
power,  with  his  power  limited  only  by  God.  God,  however,  did  limit  it,  did  guard 
the  rights  of  the  people  and  insist  on  the  observance  of  law  by  the  king. 

8  See  Appendix. 


Concepts  of  Government  25 

Thus  the  social  compact  seems  tto  have  been  accepted  with- 
out question  by  the  ministers  of  both  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries.  It  was  used  to  support  the  church  covenant 
which  was  so  dear  to  them.  From  it  and  the  inferences  drawn 
therefrom  they  found  authority  for  the  Revolution  of  1688  and 
the  Hanoverian  succession.  Both  the  social  and  the  church  cov- 
enants were  used  to  explain  and  defend  the  rights  of  the  people 
in  church  and  state,  and  not  only  of  the  people  but  of  rulers  also. 

Throughout  the  century  before  1763  the  analogy  between 
religious  and  civil  covenants  was  clearly  recognized  and  fre- 
quently expressed.  In  1645  John  Cotton,  attempting  to  prove 
the  necessity  of  the  church  covenant,  argued  thus  from  the 
covenants  in  the  Old  Testament  and  the  veiled  references  to 
covenants  in  the  New,  and  also  from  the  light  of  nature :  "for 
it  is  evident  by  the  light  of  nature  that  all  civill  Relations  are 
founded  in  Covenant.  For,  to  pass  by  naturall  Relations  between 
Parents  and  Children,  and  violent  Relations  between  Con- 
querours  and  Captives ;  there  is  no  other  way  given  whereby  a 
people  (Sui  Juris)  free  from  naturall  and  compulsory  engage- 
ments, can  be  united  or  combined  together  into  one  visible  body, 
to  stand  by  mutuall  Relation,  fellow-members  of  the  same  body, 
but  only  by  mutuall  Covenant ;  as  appeareth  between  husband 
and  wife  in  the  family,  Magistrates  and  subjects  in  the  Con- 
mon-wealth,  fellow  Citizens  in  the  same  City.  .  .  ."10  The 
Cambridge  Platform  of  1648  and  the  Answer  of  Elders  and 
Messengers  of  1662  made  the  same  comparison.11  So  again  in 
1663  John  Davenport,  in  discussing  the  power  of  the  Congre- 
gational church,  said  that  as  all  citizens  are  admitted  into  jus 
civitatis  by  voluntary  entering  into  covenant  whereby  they 
become  a  political  body,  so  it  is  in  the  church.  All  voluntary 
relations,  he  said,  are  by  covenant.12  He  spoke  of  the  "analogy 
and  agreement  that  is  between  the  Spiritual  power  of  a  Con- 
gregational Church  of  Christ,  and  the  civil  power  of  the  most 
free  and  perfect  Cities,  which  Thucidides  saith  have  three 
privileges,  viz.  to  use,  1.  Their  own  Laws.  2.  Magistrates. 
3.  Judgments.  .  .  ."13  This  is  explained  more  at  length  in  his 

10  J.   Cotton,   The   Way  of  the  Churches,   1645,   p.  4,  also  pp.   2-3,   61-62. 

11  Platform  of  Church  Discipline,  chap,  iv,  section  3.  Comparison  to  a  city  is 
drawn  from  the  Bible.  Answer  of  Elders  &  Messengers,   1662,  p.   77. 

,J  Davenport,  The  Power  of  the  Congregational  Churches,  p.   36. 
13  Ibid.,  p.  123.  See  also  pp.  27-28,  46-49.  The  church  covenant  is  "not  a  yoke  of 
bondage,   but  of  precious  liberties  ...  In  like  manner  it  bindeth   the  members  of 


26  The  Neiv  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

remarkable  Election  Sermon  in  1669  before  the  Massachusetts 
Court.  Civil  rule,  he  said,  is  "God's  Ordinance"  because  "It  is 
from  the  Light  and  the  Law  of  Nature  and  the  Law  of  Nature 
is  God's  Law";  men  being  "combined  in  Family- Society ;  it  is 
necessary  that  they  he  joyned  in  a  Civil-Society;  .  .  .  the 
power  of  making  Laws,  followeth  naturally,  though  the  manner 
of  Union,  in  a  Political  Body,  is  voluntary  .  .  .  the  designa- 
tion of  these  or  those  to  be  Civil  Rulers,  leaving  out  others  is 
from  God,  by  the  People's  free  Choice,  at  least  by  the  Suffrages 
of  the  major  part  of  them,  wherein  the  rest  must  acquiesce. 
This  Power  of  Rulers  of  the  Common-wealth  is  derived  from 
the  People's  free  Choice  .  .  .  for  the  Power  of  Government  is 
originally  in  the  People  .  .  .  the  People  so  give  the  Magisterial 
Power  unto  some,  as  that  they  still  retain  in  themselves  these 
three  Acts,  1.  That  they  may  measure  out  so  much  Civil  Power, 
as  God  in  his  Word  Alloweth  to  them,  and  no  more,  nor  less. 
2.  That  they  may  set  bounds  and  banks  to  the  exercise  of  that 
Power,  so  as  it  may  not  be  exuberant,  above  the  laws,  and  due 
Rights  and  Liberties  of  the  People.  3.  That  they  give  it  out 
conditionally,  upon  this  or  that  condition ;  so  as,  if  the  condition 
is  violated,  they  may  resume  their  power  of  chusing  another."14 
Here  is  government  set  up  by  the  people  and  resting  upon  their 
consent;  magistrates  chosen  by  the  majority  and  strictly  limited 
in  power  to  what  is  allowed  by  God,  so  hedged  about  that  their 
power  cannot  be  used  against  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the 
people,  removable  by  the  people  if  the  conditions  set  by  them 
be  violated.  Magistrates  and  people  are  bound  by  law,  and  that 
law  is  determined  by  the  divine  law  which  carefully  guards  the 
rights  and  liberties  of  the  people. 

There  are  interesting  likenesses  and  differences  between  these 
political  theories  of  the  theocratic  John  Davenport  and  those  of 
the  more  radical  Thomas  Hooker  and  Roger  Williams.  As  early 
as  1638  Thomas  Hooker  in  a  sermon  preached  at  Hartford  had 
declared,  "1.  That  the  choice  of  public  magistrates  belongs  unto 
the  people  by  God's  own  allowance.  ...  3.  They  who  have 

the  Church  to  all  the  duties  of  their  Church-relation  mutually,  both  Officers  and 
People  .  .  .  And  therefore  I  cannot  but  wonder,  that  some,  who  do  approve  and 
plead  for  all  other  Covenants,  viz..  National,  Conjugal,  Social  Covenants,  should 
yet  dislike  and  oppose  Church-Covenants"  (pp.  48-49).  See  also  A  Discourse  about 
Civil  Government  in  a  New  Plantation,   1663,  p.    6. 

14  Davenport,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1669,  pp.  4-6  (Mass.  Col.  Soc. 
Pub.,  X.). 


Concepts  of  Government  27 

power  to  appoint  officers  and  magistrates,  it  is  in  their  power 
also,  to  set  the  bounds  and  limitations  of  the  power  and  place 
unto  which  they  call  them.  Reasons.  1.  Because  the  foundation 
of  authority  is  laid,  firstly,  in  the  free  consent  of  the  people."15 

Roger  Williams  agreed  with  him.  "The  sovereign,  original, 
and  foundation  of  civil  power  lies  in  the  people;  and  it  is  evi- 
dent that  such  governments  as  are  by  them  erected  and  estab- 
lished, have  no  more  power,  nor  for  no  longer  time,  than  the 
civil  power  or  people  consenting  and  agreeing  shall  betrust  them 
with.  This  is  clear,  not  only  in  reason,  but  in  the  experience  of 
all  commonweals,  where  the  people  are  not  deprived  of  their 
natural  freedom  by  the  power  of  tyrants."16 

The  chief  differences  between  these  leaders  of  different  sects 
seem  to  lie  in  Davenport's  statement  that  the  people  can  give 
the  magistrate  no  more  and  no  less  power  than  is  allowed  by 
God,  whereas  Hooker  and  Williams  make  the  people  the  judge 
of  the  power  to  be  given.  Under  the  former  the  law  gains  a 
peculiar  sanctity  and  inviolability,  whether  interpreted  so  as  to 
extend  the  power  of  magistrates,  or,  as  might  happen,  the  power 
of  the  people.  They  agree,  however,  that  government  is  set  up 
by  the  people  and  rests  upon  their  consent ;  that  magistrates  are 
chosen  by  the  people  and  are  strictly  limited  both  in  power  and 
in  the  exercise  of  it  and  are  removable  if  they  violate  the  con- 
ditions of  their  power.17  And  they  are  arguing  already  from  the 
law  of  nature  and  from  reason. 

With  the  coming  of  the  eighteenth  century  there  was  a  greater 
elaboration  of  the  social  compact  and  of  that  between  rulers 
and  people.  Sometimes  this  was  due  to  the  desire  of  certain  of 
the  clergy  to  oppose  a  tendency  toward  Presbyterianism  and  to 
support  the  power  of  the  local  church  against  a  Council  or 
Synod,  or  the  power  of  the  brotherhood  against  a  too  authori- 
tative minister ;  sometimes  it  was  due  to  a  demand  for  religious 

15  Notes  on  two  sermons  by  Hooker  made  by  Henry  Wolcott,  Jr.  (Conn.  Hist. 
Soc.  Coll.,  I.  20).  Hooker,  in  a  letter  to  Winthrop  in  1638,  speaks  of  the  cove- 
nant made  by  the  people  of  Agawam  and  others  in  Connecticut  with  their  elected 
magistrates  and  does  not  see  how  such  a  covenant  can  be  cast  away  at  pleasure 
without  sin  (Conn.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  I.  14). 

16  The  Bloody  Tenent,  p.  137,  quoted  by  Backus,  Church  History  of  New  Eng- 
land,  I.   62  of   1839   ed.,   as   a   statement  of   belief   of  Baptists. 

1T  Illustrations  might  be  given  of  the  application  of  their  theories  by  the  clergy 
in  the  17th  century.  For  example,  in  1644  they  demanded  that  the  magistrates 
maintain  the  liberties  of  the  people  and  refuse  to  surrender  a  vessel  in  Boston  har- 
bor at  the  demand  of  the  English  commission,  affirming  "salus  populi  suprema  lex" 
(Barry,  History  of  Massachusetts,  I.  328). 


28  The  Nezu  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 


toleration;  sometimes  to  a  more  purely  political  purpose.  Min- 
isters might  wish  to  warn  those  in  power  of  the  unlawful 
nature  of  oppressive  acts  or  warn  the  people  of  the  need  of 
submission  to  lawful  authority.  In  either  case  the  aim  was  to 
inculcate  obedience  to  law  and  to  show  the  basis  therefor.  To 
do  this  the  ministers  set  forth  the  origin  and  end  of  government 
and  discussed  the  meaning  of  the  social  compact.  And  this  led 
them  to  a  discussion  of  the  state  of  nature  and  the  rights  of 
man,  both  those  given  up  and  those  retained. 

The  most  complete  account  of  the  process  by  which  com- 
pacts were  made  was  that  of  John  Wise,  of  Ipswich,  who  had 
defied  Andros,  refused  to  pay  taxes  levied,  as  he  believed,  with- 
out authority,  and  had  suffered  imprisonment.18  Heartily  op- 
posed to  the  effort  certain  ministers  were  making  to  establish  a 
Synod  in  Massachusetts,  he  published  in  1717  his  famous  treat- 
ise, A  Vindication  of  the  Government  of  New  England 
Churches.  It  is  a  striking  argument  for  democracy  in  church 
and  state  and  had  then  and  later  a  remarkable  effect.19  Wise 
considered  man  first  in  his  natural  state,  enjoying  the  liberty 
which  belonged  to  him,  a  liberty  which  made  him  subject  to  no 
other  human  being.  In  consequence,  all  men  in  this  state  were 
equal  in  authority  and  each  had  a  right  to  judge  for  himself 
what  was  most  conducive  to  his  happiness  and  welfare.  This 
liberty  and  equality  of  men,  so  Wise  believed,  could  not  be 
lessened  until,  in  order  to  form  a  civil  state,  they  gave  up  cer- 
tain rights,  at  the  same  time  preserving  and  cherishing  as  much 
as  was  consistent  with  the  public  good,  The  people  were,  there- 
fore, the  original  of  all  power,  but  when  they  combined  in 
society  they  delegated  a  part  of  their  power  and  authority  to 
others.  Wise  vividly  pictured  the  voluntary  formation  of  a  new 
commonwealth  by  such  free  and  equal  men.20  He  concluded 

18  Dexter,  Congregationalism  as  seen  in  its  Literature,  pp.  494-95.  Wise  was 
the  son  of  a  serving  man. 

19  Ibid.,  pp.  498-502;  Walker,  Congregational  Churches  in  the  United  States,  pp. 
209-12.  In  1710  Wise  had  published  a  satire  called  The  Churches  Quarrel  Espoused. 

20  J.  Wise,  Vindication,  pp.  17-39  of  1772  ed.  "Let  us  conceive  in  our  mind  a 
multitude  of  men,  all  naturally  free  and  equal;  going  about  voluntarily,  to  erect 
themselves  into   a   new   common-wealth. 

"1.  They  must  interchangeably  each  man  covenant  to  join  in  one  lasting  society, 
that  they  may  be  capable  to  concert  the  measures  of  their  safety,  by  a  public  vote. 

"2.  A  vote  or  decree  must  then  nextly  pass  to  set  up  some  particular  species  of 
government  over  them.  And  if  they  are  joined  in  their  first  compact  upon  abso- 
lute terms  to  stand  to  the  decision  of  the  first  vote  concerning  the  species  of 
government:    then   all   are   bound   by  the   majority   to  acquiesce   in   that    particular 


Concepts  of  Government  29 

that  a  democracy  was  the  type  of  government  which  the  "light 
of  nature"  often  directed  men  toward.  "A  democracy,  This  is  a 
form  of  government,  which  the  light  of  nature  does  highly 
value,  and  often  directs  to,  as  most  agreeable  to  the  just  and 
natural  prerogative  of  human  beings.  .  .  ."21 

The  connection,  in  Wise's  mind,  between  democracy  in  church 
government,  based  on  covenant,  for  which  he  was  arguing,  and 
democracy  in  the  state  is  shown  clearly  in  his  conclusion,  that 
the  "people  or  fraternity  under  the  gospel,  are  the  first  subject 
of  power  ...  a  democracy  in  church  or  state,  is  a  very  honor- 
able and  regular  government,  according  to  the  dictates  of  right 
reason.  And  therefore  .  .  .  these  churches  of  New  England, 
in  their  ancient  constitution  of  church  order ;  it  being  a  democ- 
racy, are  manifestly  justified  and  defended  by  the  law  and 
light  of  nature."22 

form  thereby  settled,  though  their  own  private  opinion,  incline  them  to  some 
other  model. 

"3.  After  a  decree  has  specified  the  particular  form  of  government,  then  there 
will  be  need  of  a  new  covenant,  whereby  those  on  whom  sovereignty  is  conferred, 
engage  to  take  care  of  the  common  peace,  and  welfare.  And  the  subjects  on  the 
other  hand,  to  yield  them  faithful  obedience.  In  which  covenant  is  included  that 
submission  and  union  of  wills,  by  which  a  state  may  be  conceived  to  be  but  one 
person  ...  A  civil  state  is  a  compound  moral  person.  Whose  will  (united  by 
those  covenants  before  passed)  is  the  will  of  all  .  .  .  the  aforesaid  covenants 
may  be  supposed,  under  God's  providence,  to  be  the  divine  Fiat,  pronounced  by 
God,  let  us  make  man  .  .  .  .  " 

nlbid.,  pp.   17-39  of  1772  ed. 

22  Ibid.,  p.  44.  Adams,  Revolutionary  New  England,  pp.  97-98,  speaks  of  Wise  as 
drawing  his  arguments  solely  from  the  law  of  nature  rather  than  from  the  Scrip- 
ture. He  thinks  that  the  political  thought  of  the  18th  century  was  divorced  from 
theology  and  based  rather  upon  Reason.  The  clergy,  it  is  true,  were  influenced  by 
Locke,  Sydney,  Hoadly,  etc.,  but  they  of  the  18th  century  as  those  of  the  17th 
believed  Reason  and  Nature  but  the  voice  of  God  and  the  laws  of  Nature  as  truly 
those  of  God  as  the  laws  found  in  the  Scripture.  This  they  said  repeatedly  and 
thus  gave  a  sacred  significance  to  the  laws  of  nature  and  the  arguments  from 
Reason.  As  John  Barnard  said  in  1734,  "this  Voice  of  Nature  is  the  Voice  of 
God.  Thus  'tis  that  vox  populi  est  vox  Dei."  And  Chas.  Chauncey  in  his  Election 
Sermon,  1747,  p.  9:  "As  it  originates  in  the  reason  of  things,  'tis,  at  the  same  time, 
essentially  founded  in  the  will  of  God.  For  the  voice  of  reason  is  the  voice  of 
God."  Moreover,  they  found  in  the  Bible  much  to  confirm  what  Nature  and  Rea- 
son taught  them.  S.  Williams  in  his  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1741,  pp.  18-21, 
23-25,  voices  the  common  conviction.  "In  the  Law  of  God  they  will  find  the  best 
Maxims  and  Rules  of  Government  they  can  ever  be  furnish'd  with  ....  There 
never  was  nor  can  be  any  wisdom  among  men,  but  what  is  communicated  from 
God;  nor  is  there  any  Law  of  Nature,  or  Rule  of  Natural  &  Moral  wisdpm, 
which  we  speak  of,  as  implanted  in  the  Mind  of  man,  but  what  is  found  in  the 
Bible,  and  cultivated  and  improved  by  that  Revelation  .  .  .  Here  you  learn,  That 
every  man  has  an  indisputable  right  to  all  the  good  things  which  God  gives  him 
by  Nature  and  Providence,  his  own  Labour  or  regular  Compacts,  Agreements  and 
Constitutions  made  between  men;  and  that  these  are  to  be  inviolably  secured  to 
every  man  till  he  forfeits  them.  Here  Rulers  are  taught  to  seek  the  virtue  and 
happiness  of  their  People,   as  the  end  of  Government  .  .  .  Besides,  it  teaches  them 


30  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

This  is  the  most  detailed  account  of  the  social  compact  found 
in  the  works  of  any  of  the  New  England  clergy  before  1763. 
One  of  its  significant  features  is  the  demand  for  a  second  cov- 
enant, the  first  to  form  a  society,  the  second  to  determine  what 
would  be  the  form  of  government.  This  distinction  has  not 
been  found  clearly  stated  elsewhere.  Wise's  two  pamphlets  must 
have  been  extensively  read  by  clergy  and  laymen.23  The  clergy 
were  sharply  divided  over  the  issue  of  Synods,  and  the  quarrel 
was  prolonged.  Those  who  wished  no  Synod  ultimately  won, 
owing  at  least  in  part  to  the  impetus  given  to  popular  rights  by 
John  Wise.24  But  although  many  disagreed  with  Wise's  con- 
clusion as  to  the  power  of  the  individual  church  and  highly 
disapproved  of  democracy  in  church  or  state,  preferring  rather 
a  balanced  government,  they  yet  agreed  with  him  that  compact 
was  the  method  by  which  the  people  set  up  government. 

There  was,  however,  some  difference  of  opinion  as  to  whether 
all  governments  of  whatsoever  kind  originated  in  compact. 
Joseph  Moss  in  his  Connecticut  Election  Sermon  of  1715  said 
that  all  just  governments  originated  either  in  compact  or  con- 
quest, the  latter  where  the  war  was  a  just  one.25  John  Barnard 
in  1734  said  that  all  governments  "upon  a  more  Thorow  Exami- 
nation" resolved  themselves  into  compact  and  agreement.26  In 
1738  in  a  remarkable  sermon  on  government,  in  which  he  quoted 
Locke,  Puffendorf,  Rapin,  and  others,  Jared  Eliot  declared  that 
civil  government  was  set  up  by  force,  by  fraud,  or  by  compact, 

the  just  measures  of  their  authority  &  all  the  true  Uses  of  it,  as  'tis  derived 
from  the  Supream  Lord  for  the  good  of  the  People,  and  to  be  used  for  Him,  to 
promote  their  Felicity,  according  to  the  just,  natural  &  covenanted  Rights  of  the 
people   ..."   This   will  become  still    more  evident   in   later    chapters. 

The  evidence  shows  that  neither  the  clergy,  including  Wise,  nor  the  laymen  as 
a  whole  turned  so  completely  from  theology  and  the  Scripture  in  their  political 
thinking  as  Adams  implies.  There  was  no  conflict  in  their  minds  between  the  divine 
and  natural  law.  They  were  the  same.  For  further  references  to  social  compact, 
etc.,  see  S.  Williams,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1741,  pp.  23-25;  E.  Holyoke, 
Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1736,  p.  112;  Frink,  Massachusetts  Election  Ser- 
mon, 1758,  pp.   73-74;   S.  Haven,  Sermon,   1761,  p.  9. 

23  Each  went  through  two  editions. 

24  For  further  details,  see  chap,  v.;  Dexter,  Congregationalism  as  seen  in  its  Lit- 
erature, pp.  513.,  gives  an  account  of  the  quarrel.  Walker,  Creeds  and  Platforms,  pp. 
492-93,  thinks  Wise's  pamphlets  of  less  influence  than  the  opposition  of  the  General 
Court. 

25  J.  Moss,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,   1715,  pp.  6-7. 

2"J.  Barnard,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1734.  Cf.  Wm.  Welsteed,  Mass- 
achusetts Election  Sermon,  1751,  pp.  11-12:  all  right  to  rule  over  men,  even  that 
founded  in  conquest,  "must  finally  be  resolved  into  Compact,  Consent,  and  Agree- 
ment ..." 


Concepts  of  Government  31 

which  was  the  most  ordinary  and  most  regular  government;27 
that  the  government  was  a  legal  one  once  a  people  was  reduced, 
whether  the  method  be  by  conquest  or  by  covenant.28  The 
majority  believed  as  did  Elisha  Williams  that  all  governments 
which  did  not  originate  from  the  people  and  in  which  they  did 
not  make  their  own  laws  were  not,  properly  speaking,  govern- 
ments at  all,  but  tyrannies  and  "absolutely  against  the  Law  of 
God  and  Nature."29  There  was  no  medium  between  common 
consent  and  lawless  force  and  violence.30 

27  J.  Eliot,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1731,  p.  31.  This  is  the  first  direct 
mention  of  Locke  found  in  the  writings  of  the  clergy. 

28  Ibid.,   p.    11. 

29  E.  Williams,  A  Seasonable  Plea,  1744,  pp.  4-5,  63,  quotes  Locke  on  Govern- 
ment very  freely. 

30  Mayhew,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1754,  pp.  5-8.  B.  Stevens,  Mass- 
achusetts Election  Sermon,  1761,  p.  16,  says  the  Jewish  like  all  other  free  govern- 
ments was  founded  on  compact. 


Chapter  IV 

THEORIES  CONCERNING  RULERS  IN  CHURCH 
AND  STATE 

Samuel  Stoddard  in  an  Election  Sermon  of  1703  made  the 
assertion  that  "The  abuses  that  are  offered  unto  a  People  by 
their  Rulers,  and  the  abuses  that  are  offered  unto  the  Rulers  by 
the  People  are  deeply  resented  by  God."1  Over  half  a  century 
later  Benjamin  Stevens,  in  a  similar  sermon,  declared  that 
"The  Majesty  of  laws  must  be  revered,  where  the  liberties  of 
a  people  are  secured."2  Thus  the  New  England  ministers  applied 
the  concept  of  compact  obligations,  natural  law,  and  God-given 
rights  to  their  conception  of  the  relative  power  and  duties  of 
rulers  and  people.  This  was  a  subject  which  was  sure  to  catch 
men's  attention  and  arouse  controversy,  especially  in  the  first 
half  of  the  eighteenth  century  when  certain  of  the  older  tradi- 
tions and  ways  of  life  were  breaking  down  under  the  impact  of 
new  economic  and  social  conditions. 

By  1715  a  period  of  rapid  growth  in  the  New  England  col- 
onies had  set  in.  Men  began  to  move  into  the  western  part  of 
Massachusetts  and  the  less  settled  regions  of  Connecticut  and 
up  along  the  rivers  into  Vermont  and  New  Hampshire.  They 
were  eager  for  land,  even  to  the  extent  of  buying  it  when  they 
had  no  intention  of  settling.  New  towns  were  founded,  old  ones 
were  divided.  There  were  quarrels  between  absentee  proprietors 
and  settlers,  quarrels  over  land  titles,  quarrels  over  church 
affairs  and  over  many  other  matters.  There  were  wars,  bitter 
party  strife,  struggles  between  the  lower  and  upper  houses  of 
the  legislature,  disputes  with  the  governors,  depreciation  of  the 
currency,  speculation,  greater  differentiation  in  wealth,  hard 
times  for  the  poor.3  There  was  widespread  discontent  among 
the  people.  Men  were  inclined  to  ignore  distinctions  of  rank 
and  to  criticize  the  government,  to  talk  vaguely  of  equality  and 
liberty,  of  oppression  and  the  burden  of  heavy  taxes.  There  was 

1  Stoddard,   Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,   1703,  p.  4. 

2  Stevens,   Massachusetts   Election   Sermon,    1761,  p.    63. 

3  For  a  full  account  see  Adams,  Revolutionary  New  England.  Much  can  be 
learned  from  the  sermons  of  the  period,  though  one  must  always  take  into  account 
the  traditional  character  of  the  election  sermons  and  the  natural  tendency  of  the 
clergy,  especially  the  older  ones,  to  exaggerate  the  evils  of  the  day. 

[32] 


Theories  Concerning  Rulers  in  Church  and  State         33 

what  the  clergy  were  pleased  to  call  a  "levelling  spirit"  loose 
in  the  land,  especially  in  Connecticut.4  In  church  as  well  as  in 
state  the  common  man  was  inclined  to  insist  on  his  rights. 

To  many  of  the  clergy  the  spirit  of  the  day  seemed  disorderly 
and  lawless  and  they  feared  for  the  welfare  of  the  government. 
They  believed  it  their  peculiar  business  to  be  "watchmen  on  the 
tower",  to  scent  out  and  warn  against  danger  and  to  set  men 
right  as  to  the  principles  upon  which  they  were  to  act  and  the 
views  they  were  to  hold.5  Some  blamed  the  people  and  empha- 
sized the  need  of  submission  to  government  and  to  authority. 
These  believed  it  the  special  charge  of  gospel  ministers  "to 
put  their  Flock  in  mind  to  be  Subject  to  Principalities  and 
Powers  and  to  obey  Magistrates."6  Others  did  not  hesitate  to 
lay  a  large  share  of  the  trouble  at  the  door  of  the  rulers  and  to 
enlarge  upon  the  duties  of  rulers  to  people.  The  Bible,  so  these 
said,  was  far  more  concerned  with  the  good  of  subjects  than 
with  the  splendor  of  rulers.7  But  conservatives  and  liberals  felt 
the  necessity  of  defining  clearly  what  a  just  government  should 
be  and  the  respective  rights  and  duties  of  rulers  and  people. 
So  the  main  topic  of  the  political  sermons  and  of  many  of  those 
more  purely  religious  was  what  constituted  lawful  authority. 
And  again  the  clergy  searched  the  scriptures  and  the  law  of 
God  as  well  as  the  writings  of  philosophers,  ancient  and  modern. 

There  were  certain  texts  which  were  used  constantly.  In  the 
Bible  rulers  are  "Gods",  or  "ordained  of  God".  The  people  are 
bidden  to  be  "subject  to  the  higher  powers",  to  "render  unto 
Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's  and  unto  God  the  things 
that  are  God's."  But  they  are  also  told  that  rulers  are  "ministers 
of  God  for  good",  that  "One  is  your  Master  even  Christ", 
"You  are  called  to  liberty",  and  are  commanded  to  "Stand  fast 
in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made  you  free."  How  were 
these  and  other  phrases  to  be  interpreted  and  reconciled,  and 
what  must  a  government  be  like  if  it  were  based  upon  divine 
precepts?  Moreover,  the  law  of  nature  and  the  voice  of  reason 
also  spoke  God's  will.  What  had  they  to  tell  about  the  relation 
of  ruler  and  subject? 

*  For  causes  of  this,  see  chaps,  v-vij. 

5  N.  Appleton,  Convention  Sermon,  1743,  pp.  27-30. 

*  Pemberton,    Massachusetts    Election    Sermon,    1710,    p.    87;    various    other    illus- 
trations might  be  given.   S.   Whittelsey,   Connecticut   Election   Sermon,    1731,   p.    35. 

7  J.   Eliot,    Connecticut   Election   Sermon,    1738. 


34  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

The  ministers  of  New  England  believed  that  "rulers",  among 
whom  they  included  king,  parliament,  colonial  governors  and 
assemblies,  and  all  in  authority,  were  God's  delegates  and 
derived  their  power  from  Him.8  But  not  directly.  It  were  folly 
to  think  that  and  to  base  thereon  any  claim  to  absolute  authority 
or  divine  right.9  Rather  their  power  came,  as  did  civil  govern- 
ment itself,  only  mediately  from  God  but  directly  from  the 
people.10  It  was  not  left  to  rulers  to  be  oppressive  and  arbitrary, 
not  even  if  their  power  came  by  conquest.  God,  from  whom 
their  power  ultimately  was  derived,  had  limited  that  power.11 
Since  rulers  were  called  "Gods",  they  must  conform  to  God's 

8  Typical  references  may  be  found  in  the  Massachusetts  Election  Sermons  of 
1710  by  Pemberton,  p.  18;  of  1744  by  Allen,  pp.  20,  25-26;  of  1750  by  Phillips, 
p.  3;  in  the  Connecticut  Election  Sermons  of  1713  by  Bulkley,  pp.  14-25;  of  1719 
by  Chauncey,  pp.  1-2;  in  a  sermon  at  Portsmouth,  N.  H.,  by  Haven,  in  1761, 
p.   8. 

8  Mayhew,  Sermon,  1750,  in  Thornton,  pp.  85-86.  Massachusetts  Election  Ser- 
mon, 1754,  pp.  4-5:  "These  notions  are  not  drawn  from  the  holy  scriptures,  but 
from  a  far  less  sure  and  sacred  fountain.  They  are  only  the  devices  of  lawned 
parasites,  or  other  graceless  politicians,  to  serve  the  purposes  of  ambition  and 
tyranny."  E.  Williams,  1744,  A  Seasonable  Plea,  p.  26:  The  Powers  that  be  are 
of  God,  etc.  .  .  .  "no  doubt  relates  to  Civil  powers;  ...  A  Text  often  wrecked 
and  tortured  by  such  Wits  as  were  disposed  to  serve  the  Designs  of  arbitrary 
Power,  of  erecting  a  civil  Tyranny  over  a  free  people,  and  as  often  wrested  out 
of  their  hands  by  the  Force  of  Truth  ..."  There  were  numerous  other  such  state- 
ments throughout  the  period.  Occasionally,  however,  one  finds  a  different  belief. 
For  other   references   see  Appendix. 

10  J.  Bulkley,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1713,  p.  14:  "In  elective  states, 
where  Persons  are  Advanc'd  by  the  Suffrage  of  others  to  Places  of  Rule,  and  vested 
with  Civil  Power,  the  Persons  Chusing  give  not  the  Power,  but  God  ....  And 
hence  it  is,  that  Humane  Laws  bind  the  Conscience;  Not  simply  as  Humane,  but 
as  made  by  that  Authority  which  is  Divine  in  its  Original,  and  to  which  Obed- 
ience is  Commanded  in  the  Divine  Law."  J.  Moss,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon, 
1715,  pp.  7,  32,  speaks  of  agreement  between  rulers  and  ruled,  of  compact  and 
of  virtual  covenant  between  General  Court  and  people.  J.  Barnard,  Massachusetts 
Election  Sermon,  1734,  p.  17:  "So  that  after  all  is  said,  the  Right  to  rule  takes 
its  Rise  from  the  Consent,  and  Agreement,  that  is  the  Choice  and  Election,  of 
the  Community,  State,  or  Kingdom  .  .  .  and  He,  and  He  only,  has  the  Right 
to  rule,  to  whom  the  Government  commits  the  Power,  and  Authority."  J.  May- 
hew,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1754,  p.  6:  "...  from  man,  from  com- 
mon consent,  it  is  that  lawful  rulers  immediately  derive  their  power."  Thomas 
Frink,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1758,  pp.  73,  74:  "by  Compact,  Consent 
or  Choice  of  the  Persons  governed."  "The  individual  Person  becomes  the  higher 
Power,  by  the  Consent,  the  Choice  or  Contract  original  or  actual,  of  the  Com- 
munity." S.  Haven,  Sermon,  at  Portsmouth,  1761,  p.  9,  speaks  of  "the  mutual  con- 
tract between  the  prince  and  the  subjects."  There  are  many  other  similar  refer- 
ences. A  few  emphasize  the  derivation  of  power  from  God  and  make  the  King 
the  fountain  of  all  power.  Cf.  Bulkley,  1692.  E.  Adams,  Connecticut  Election 
Sermon,  1733,  stresses  power  as  derived  from  God  and  therefore  not  to  be  re- 
sisted, as  does  Throop,  Massachusetts  Election   Sermon,   1758. 

11  Pemberton,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1710,  pp.  18,  97;  Wise,  Mass- 
achusetts Election  Sermon,  1729,  pp.  18-19;  J.  Ingersoll,  Connecticut  Election 
Sermon,  1761,  pp.  17-18;  Haven,  Sermon  at  Portsmouth,  1761,  pp.  8-9.  There  are 
many  similar  statements;   see  Appendix. 


Theories  Concerning  Rulers  in  Church  and  State        35 

pattern  and  must  labor  to  imitate  God's  government.12  Here 
the  analogy  between  theology  and  political  philosophy  is  strik- 
ing. God  and  Christ  govern  men  for  their  good,  therefore  so 
must  human  rulers.13  For  that  and  that  only  do  they  exist. 
"The  tye  is  Sacred  and  Deep  to  manage  this  great  betrustment 
faithfully",  said  John  Hancock  in  1722.14 

God  and  Christ  govern  always  by  fixed  rules,  by  a  divine 
constitution,  and  therefore  so  must  human  rulers.15  The  funda- 
mental constitutions  of  states  may  differ;  men's  rights  under 
them  may  be  greater  or  less,  but  certain  great  rights  are  given 
by  Nature  and  Nature's  God  to  the  people.  These  are  a  part  of 
every  constitution  and  no  ruler  is  permitted  by  God  to  violate 
them.  Rulers  cannot  change  the  constitution;  that  can  be  done 
only  by  the  people.  But  the  constitution  and  the  laws  must  be 
consonant  with  the  divine  law.16  Therefore  rulers  must  study 
carefully  the  law  of  God,  both  natural  and  revealed.17  In  the 
Bible  are  found  all  the  maxims  and  rules  of  government :  there 
the  natural  laws  are  made  clearer,  there  the  ruler  learns  his  due 
authority  and  its  limitations,  there  the  people  learn  how  far 
they  must  submit.  Rulers  must  also  thoroughly  understand  the 
constitution  and  the  civil  law,  that  they  may  learn  their  obliga- 
tions and  the  people's  rights.18  Even  when  God  dealt  with  the 

12  Appleton,  Sermon,  1742,  p.  49:  "The  Grand  Charter  which  the  Sovereign  of 
the  World  has  given  to  Magistrates,  impowers  them  to  make  Orders  and  By-Laws 
(for  human  Laws  are  no  other)  for  the  well-ordering  and  governing  civil  Societies, 
but  it  is  with  this  Limitation  and  Proviso,  that  they  be  not  repugnant  to  the  Law 
of  God,  which  is  the  Law  of  Justice,  Truth,  Mercy  and  Goodness,  your  Laws  then 
must  be  tempered  after  the  same  Manner."  J.  Allen,  Massachusetts  Election  Ser- 
mon, 1744,  pp.  28-29:  "  .  .  .  .  great  end  of  government  is  the  good  of  the  sub- 
ject: This  is  the  very  design  of  Christ  himself  in  his  rule  over  us  .  .  .  Now  in 
this  the  God  of  heaven  is  a  pattern  to  our  earthly  Gods  .  .  .  .   " 

13  Belcher,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1701,  pp.  32-35,  shows  how  Joshua, 
Moses,  David,  and  Solomon  had  only  the  good  of  the  people  at  heart. 

14  Hancock,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,   172k:,  p.  15. 

15  References  for  most  of  these  statements  will  be  found  in  connection  with 
later  quotations. 

18  Davenport,  Power  of  Congregational  Churches,  p.  129 ;  Fitch,  Connecticut 
Election  Sermon,  1674,  p.  14;  Cutler,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1717,  pp. 
16-17.  Laws  must  not  cross  antecedent  obligations  we  lie  under  to  laws  of  Nature 
and  of  God;  and  must  be  such  as  to  make  it  no  sin  to  obey  them.  Cf.  also  Ingersoll, 
Connecticut   Election   Sermon,    1761,  pp.    17-18. 

17  Moss,  1715,  pp.  13-14;  Breck,  1728,  p.  22;  Buckingham,  1728,  p.  42;  Appleton, 
Sermon,  1742,  pp.  11-13;  Worthington,  1744,  p.  29;  Woodbridge,  1752,  pp.  10-11; 
Mayhew,    1754,  pp.    6-8. 

18  Moss,  1715,  pp.  18-19,  25-28.  They  must  have  leisure  and  good  pay  for  this 
purpose.  Mather,  1725,  p.  7;  Buckingham,  1728,  p.  42;  Wise,  1729,  p.  11:  "They 
should  be  well  seen  into  the  fundamental  Laws  of  the  Constitution,  by  which  the 
Liberties  and  Privileges  of  the  Subject  are  secured;  as  well  as  the  Prerogative  of 
the  Prince  is  ascertained.   For  if  the  Rulers  of  a  People  don't  rightly  understand 


36  The  Nezv  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

Jews  who  were  under  His  immediate  government,  He  had  their 
rulers  write  down  the  constitution  in  a  book  and  read  it  con- 
stantly. It  was  evident  that  knowledge  and  ability  were  neces- 
sary, and  the  clergy  were  unanimous  in  requiring  these  qualities 
in  civil  rulers  and  for  the  most  part  in  their  ministers  as  well.19 
If  the  instructions  of  its  clergy  for  a  hundred  years  had  any 
weight,  it  is  no  wonder  that  New  England  wanted  its  leaders 
well-born  and  able. 

Not  only  are  the  rulers  strictly  limited  by  law,  but  the  people 
as  well.  To  submit  to  lawful  authority  is  required  of  them  by 
God.20  This  does  not  mean  a  lessening  but  rather  a  preservation 
of  their  liberty,  for  law  is  the  basis  of  liberty.  The  restraint  put 
upon  Christians  by  Christ  is  for  the  very  purpose  of  increasing 
their  liberty,  and  so  it  is  in  civil  government.  Without  law  and 
obedience  to  law  there  would  be  no  liberty;  lawlessness  on  the 
part  of  the  people  is  quite  as  likely  to  destroy  it  as  tyranny  and 
oppression  on  the  part  of  rulers.  Neither  tyranny  nor  anarchy 
is  pleasing  to  God.21  ^ 

One  of  the  most  striking  features  of  the  political  philosophy 
of  the  ministers  is  this  emphasis  upon  fundamental  law  and  its 
binding  quality .v  Many  of  the  election  sermons  discussed  it  and 
some  were  remarkably  detailed,  but  it  was  also  the  subject  of 
sermons  less  political  in  their  nature.  It  came  up  repeatedly  in 
ecclesiastical  controversies  and  in  the  struggle   for   religious 

the  Constitution,  or  duly  consider  whether  it  be  an  absolute  Monarchy,  ...  or  a 
mixt  Monarchy,  where  the  Prerogative  is  bounded  and  limited  by  Law;  and  the 
Subjects  Liberty  and  Property  secured  by  legal  Fences.  If  they  don't  duly  consider 
how  dearly  their  Privileges  have  been  purchased,  how  highly  they  are  esteemed,  how 
valuable  they  are  in  themselves,  and  how  jealous  a  People  justly  are  of  them,  the 
Rulers  may  not  be  so  careful  to  keep  the  Constitution,  and  establish  Laws  and 
Rules  made  for  the  Defence  of  these  invaluable  Privileges."  Worthingt'on,  1744,  p. 
28:  the  "very  Principles  and  Foundation  of  Governments  and  the  Secrets  of 
Politicks,"  the  statutes  and  common  law,  etc.  T.  Barnard,  Sermon,  1763,  p.  25; 
and  many  others.  Swift,  in  Mass.  Col.  Soc.  Pub.  I.  405,  says  that  four-fifths  of  all 
Massachusetts   Election   Sermons   deal  with  the  character   of  the  good   ruler. 

19  At  first  Separates  and  Baptists  laid  little  stress  upon  an  educated  clergy,  but 
before  the  Revolution  the  Baptists  had  founded  Brown  University  to  supply  the 
growing  demand. 

20  A  commonplace  throughout  the  whole  period;  even  Mayhew,  who  was  so  out- 
spoken against  arbitrary  power  and  so  devoted  to  freedom,  said,  "However,  it  is  not 
to  be  forgotten  that  as  in  all  free  constitutions  of  government  law,  and  not  will, 
is  the  measure,  of  the  executive  Magistrate's  power,  so  it  is  the  measure  of  the 
subject's    obedience  and    submission"    (Election    Sermon,    1754,   pp.    20-21). 

21  A  common  idea  in  the  sermons,  with  varying  emphasis;  Belcher,  Massachusetts 
Election  Sermon,  1701,  p.  31,  says  that  tyranny  unless  very  extreme  is  better 
than    anarchy. 


Theories  Concerning  Rulers  in  Church  and  State        37 

toleration.  Only  the  language  used  by  the  ministers  themselves 
can  give  any  vivid  conception  of  their  convictions.22 

Gershom  Bulkeley,  who  in  1692  published  his  Will  and  Doom 
already  referred  to,  resented  the  fact  that  all  those  who  did  not 
agree  with  the  independent  action  of  Connecticut  were  accused 
of  being  enemies  to  lawful  government.  He  believed  that  the 
king  was  the  fountain  of  all  power  but  that  he  was  strictly 
limited  by  God.  No  human  law  can  be  contrary  to  the  law  of 
nature  and  right  reason,  he  said,  for  an  unreasonable  law  is  a 
law  against  law  and  unlawful  authority  is  no  authority.  All 
lawful  authority  comes  from  God  and  must  be  obeyed,  but 
unlawful  or  usurped  authority  may  be  resisted.23  Cotton  Mather 
was  just  as  definite.  Speaking  of  the  Declaration  of  Indulgence 
by  James  II,  he  said :  "If  it  assumed  an  illegal  power  of  dis- 
pensing with  laws,  yet  in  relation  to  them,  it  only  dispensed 
with  the  execution  of  such  infamous  laws  as  were  ipso  facto 
null  and  void  before ;  laws  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God,  and  the 
rights  and  claims  of  human  nature.  .  .  ."24 

One  of  the  early  sermons  mentioned  and  quoted  by  other 
ministers  was  the  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon  of  1710  by 
Ebenezer  Pemberton.  God,  said  Pemberton,  is  the  source  of  all 
power  and  all  rulers  are  accountable  to  Him.  God  rules  "not 
by  unaccountable  will  but  by  stable  measures",  therefore  earthly 
rulers  likewise  govern  by  "unalterable  principles,  and  fixed 
Rules."  Pemberton  grew  impatient  with  those  who  "with  a 
Nodd"  tried  to  inflame  the  people  and  upon  some  slight  com- 
plaint rouse  rebellion.  Yet  he  acknowledged  that  the  people 
must  have  some  regular  remedy  when  the  "Fundamental  Con- 
stitution" was  overturned  and  their  liberties  and  property 
invaded.25 

22  These  sermons  are  to  be  found  in  various  New  England  libraries  but  they 
are  so  little  read  that  it  seems  wise  to  quote  certain  ones  at  some  length.  See 
Appendix. 

23  G.  Bulkeley,  "Will  and  Doom,"  Conn.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.  III.  93-97.  See  also 
"The  People's  Rights  to  Election  or  Alteration  of  Government  in  Connecticut,"  Conn. 
Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  I. 

24  Cotton  Mather,  Parentator,  p.  102,  quoted  from  Letter  Book  of  S.  Sewall,  I. 
56,    note. 

25  For  fuller  quotation  see  Appendix.  See  also  Woodbridge,  Connecticut  Election 
Sermon,  1752,  p.  10:  both  "Light  of  Nature  and  Revelation  agree  .  .  .  that  he 
that  ruleth  over  men  must  be  Just."  Appleton,  Sermon,  1742,  pp.  35-36,  57-58, 
thinks  the  people,  though  sometimes  led  away,  can  judge  as  to  the  justice  of  rulers 
and  whether  they  are  oppressed  and  injured.  Sermon  1757,  p.  18:  If  a  ruler  op- 
presses the  people,  "He  acts  quite  contrary  to  the  original  Design  of  Government  and 
contrary  to  the  express  Will  of  Him  from  whence  all  Power  and  Authority  has  de- 
rived." 


38  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

Shortly  afterwards,  in  1713,  there  was  preached  an  election 
sermon  in  Connecticut  by  John  Bulkley  which,  aside  from  the 
two  pamphlets  of  John  Wise,  is  the  most  interesting  of  these 
early  eighteenth-century  political  discourses.  He  discusses  the 
mutual  serviceableness  of  religion  and  civil  government,  religion 
being  as  essential  to  a  due  observance  of  good  laws  as  to  the 
making  and  due  execution  of  them.26  Religion  inculcates  good 
principles,  establishes  maxims  of  government,  forces  both  ruled 
and  ruler  to  a  faithful  performance  of  duty.  He  speaks  strongly 
against  "levelism"  as  tending  to  destroy  government,  but  also 
declares  that  rulers  must  not  be  arbitrary  but  must  "labour  to 
imitate  the  Divine  Government ;  which  is  manag'd  by  fixed  and 
steady  Rules",  and  government  can  be  successful  only  as  those 
rules  are  attended.  God  has  in  his  Word  fixed  the  bounds  and 
limits  of  government ;  and  though  the  various  degrees  of  per- 
sons ruling  and  the  limitations  upon  their  power  be  left  to 
men,  yet  they  must  have  due  regard  to  the  general  laws  by 
which  God  describes  and  determines  the  bounds  of  human 
authority;  and  no  power  can  be  vested  in  men  which  is  not 
proportioned  to  the  public  good.  "Its  not  in  the  Power  of 
Rulers",  he  says,  "to  make  what  Laws  they  please,  Suspend, 
Abrogate  or  Disanul  them  at  pleasure.  ...  As  for  Mens  Civil 
Rights,  as  Life,  Liberty,  Estate,  &c.  God  has  not  Subjected 
these  to  the  Will  &  Pleasure  of  Rulers.  They  may  not  Enact 
any  Laws  to  the  Prejudice  of  them,  nor  Disanul  such  Laws  of 
the  State  as  tend  to  Secure  these  Interests.  .  .  .  Tis  already 
Determin'd  in  the  Divine  Law  (with  relation  to  these  Interests 
of  a  People)  that  the  Enjoyment  of  them  be  free  &  undisturb'd 
and  Rulers  may  not  make  any  Determinations  repugnant  here 
to :  Or,  if  they  do,  they  are  of  no  force.  No  Law  of  the  Civil 
Magistrate  can  bind  in  Opposition  to  the  Divine.  .  .  .  And  as 
to  such  things  being  indifferent  in  their  own  Nature,  and  not 
already  Determin'd  in  the  Law  of  God,  nor  by  Principle  dedu- 
cible  therefrom,  altho'  they  are  subject  to  the  Determination 
of  Humane  Authority,  yet  all  must  be  done  in  due  Subordina- 
tion to  those  Laws  of  God  that  have  made  it  a  Sin  in  any  to 

28  See  also  Connecticut  Election  Sermons  by  Moss,  1715,  pp.  13-14;  Whit'telsey, 
1731,  pp.  9-10;  Williams,  1741,  pp.  1,  8,  18-21,  23-25,  31;  Worthington,  1744, 
pp.  4-5,  7-8;  Whitman,  1745,  p.  1-2;  Woodbridge,  1752,  pp.  10-11,  17-18;  also 
Appleton,  Sermon,  1742,  pp.  11-12  and  Mayhew,  Sermon,  1754,  p.  8.  Various  others 
are  referred  to  elsewhere. 


Theories  Concerning  Riders  in  Church  and  State        39 

invade  these  Rights  of  a  People."27  That  rulers  must  preserve 
the  life,  liberty,  and  property  of  the  people  inviolate  or  else  act 
in  opposition  to  God's  law  is  an  idea  repeated  constantly  in  the 
sermons  and  pamphlets  written  by  the  clergy.  From  the  middle 
of  the  seventeenth  century  this  is  a  common  phrase,  especially 
liberty  and  property.  The  significance  of  this  is  great  and  can- 
not be  overemphasized!  No  one  can  fully  understand  the  Ameri- 
can Revolution  and  the  American  constitutional  system  without 
a  realization  of  the  long  history  and  religious  associations  which 
lie  back  of  these  words;  without  realizing  that  for  a  hundred 
years  before  the  Revolution  men  were  taught  that  these  rights 
were  protected  by  divine,  inviolable  law. 

The  first  of  the  eighteenth-century  ministers  who  made  the 
rules  which  are  binding  upon  the  ruler  depend  upon  compact 
was  Joseph  Moss  in  his  Connecticut  Election  Sermon  of  1715, 
two  years  before  Wise  published  his  famous  Vindication.  All 
just  government,  he  says,  is  founded  either  in  compact,  or  in 
conquest  where  that  is  just.  If  founded  on  compact  between 
ruler  and  ruled,  some  laws  must  be  formulated  binding  the 
former,  which  must  be  impartially  executed  ;28  even  if  founded 
in  conquest,  God  requires  the  conqueror  to  make  good  laws  and 
to  observe  them  faithfully.  Moss  believed  that  the  people  must 
submit  to  rulers  so  long  as  they  kept  within  their  legal  limits. 

In  1722  the  man  who  delivered  the  election  sermon  at  Boston 
was  John  Hancock  of  Lexington,  the  predecessor  of  Jonas  Clark 
of  Revolutionary  fame,  and  the  grandfather  of  the  more  famous 
John  Hancock.  His  whole  sermon  is  on  rulers  as  benefactors, 

27  J.  Bulkley,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1713,,  pp.  3-30.  Like  references  are 
very  numerous. 

23  "As  none  can  make  a  just  Claim  to  any  Natural  Original  Right  to  Rule  over 
others,  (Family  Rulers  only  excepted)  so  Mankind  never  did  nor  will,  Submit 
themselves  voluntarily  to  the  Government  of  others  their  Fellow-Men;  but  upon 
some  Agreement  of  what  Rules,  the  Ruler  or  Rulers  should  observe  in  Govern- 
ment; which  Rules  are  the  Laws  of  that  Kingdom  or  State  so  Covenanting  to  be 
under  Go\'ernment ;  and  in  such  Government  founded  thus  Originally  in  Com- 
pact; the  right  Execution  of  the  Civil  Rulers  Office,  lyeth  in  the  impartial  &  up- 
right Administration  of  Justice  .  .  .  according  to  the  Rules",  (J.  Moss,  Connect- 
icut Election  Sermon,  1715,  pp.  6-8,  32,  40).  T.  Buckingham,  Connecticut  Election 
Sermon,  1728,  p.  43,  says  there  must  be  some  fixed  rules  of  government  duly  pub- 
lished; that  a  constitution  of  good  laws  is  absolutely  necessary  for  both  people  and 
rulers.  Jeremiah  Wise,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1729,  pp.  11-19,  says  rulers 
should  know  well  the  fundamental  laws  of  the.  constitution  by  which  the  liberties 
and  privileges  of  the  subject  as  well  as  the  prerogative  of  the  prince  are  secured. 
Rulers  are  to  govern  by  fixed  rules,  those  of  God's  Word  and  human  laws  agreeable 
thereto.  Rulers  cannot  invade  the  rights  and  the  liberties  of  the  people.  God  does 
not  permit  it.  He  quotes  Bishop  Burnet.  Such  quotations  before  1760  could  be 
multiplied. 


40  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

and  he  is  most  emphatic  in  his  denunciation  of  those  who  abuse 
the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people.  When  rulers  so  abuse  their 
power,  he  says,  they  are  "the  greatest  Burdens  unto  Mankind, 
and  the  greatest  Plagues  and  punishments  to  the  World.  .  .  ." 
He  then  addresses  the  Court  directly  :  ".  .  .  if  you  should  abuse 
your  Power,  and  go  over  all  the  bounds  of  your  Duty  &  Obli- 
gations ;  oppress  &  vex  this  People,  and  lay  heavy  burdens  upon 
them,  and  grievous  to  be  born ;  you'd  forfeit  the  gratitude  and 
regard  due  to  Benefactors;  and  become  obnoxious  not  only  to 
the  resentments  of  the  People  groaning  under  their  burdens, 
but  also  to  the  Divine  Displeasure ;  ...  As  Oppression  makes 
a  wise  man  mad,  so  it  makes  a  righteous  God  angry."29 

One  of  the  ministers  whose  convention  and  election  sermons 
defined  good  government  and  the  power  of  rulers  both  in  church 
and  state  was  John  Barnard  of  Marblehead.  In  his  Election  Ser- 
mon of  1734  he  discusses  the  origin  of  government  and  the  right 
to  rule  in  compact  and  then  turns  to  the  constitution  of  a  state. 
Righteousness  in  a  ruler,  either  executive  or  legislative,  means 
acting  upon  and  preserving  the  constitution.  ".  .  .  It  is  certain, 
(with  a  proper  Salvo  to  the  natural  Rights  of  Mankind,  which 
it  is  the  End  of  all  Government  to  preserve,)  none  can  have 
any  Right  to  act  contrary  to  the  fundamental  Laws  of  that  State, 
till  all  Parties  concerned  agree  upon  such  Alterations  as  are 
thought  needful,  and  then  those  Alterations  become  wrought 
into  the  Constitution,  and  are  a  certain  Rule  for  all  the  Parts 
of  the  Government  to  go  by,  in  their  future  Administrations."30 
This  careful  observance  of  the  constitution  is  especially  neces- 
sary in  a  "mixed  government",  that  no  part  may  overstep  its 
authority  but  that  each  may  preserve  its  rights  inviolate.  Barn- 
ard also  declares  that  the  natural  and  civil  rights  of  subjects 
must  be  zealously  guarded  by  rulers,  but  he  deplores  the  fact 
that  persons  of  boundless  ambition  often  foment  popular  clamor 
about  liberty  and  property  and  delude  people  into  thinking  they 

28  J.  Hancock,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1722,  pp.  13-14,  24-25;  Stod- 
dard, Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1703,  p.  IS:  "When  People  are  put  to  un- 
necessary charge,  they  are  Oppressed,  and  when  they  are  Oppressed,  they  are 
abused;  it  is  directly  contrary  to  the  Office  of  Rulers,  to  lay  heavy  burdens  on 
the  People  ..."   Cf.  also  N.   Hunn,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,   1747,   pp.    14-15. 

30  J.  Barnard,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1734,  pp.  23-24.  For  fuller  quota- 
tions, see  Appendix.  In  his  Convention  Sermon  of  1738,  Barnard  quotes  Hoadly 
on  the  right's  of  the  people.  This  is  much  like  Chauncey's  Sermon  of  1747.  See  also 
Holyoke,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1736,  pp.  12-13. 


Theories  Concerning  Rulers  in  Church  and  State        41 

are  in  danger  when  all  they  want  is  uncontrolled  sway.  Such 
designs,  he  says,  must  be  guarded  against. 

During  the  period  before  1740  the  Connecticut  ministers 
seem  to  have  been  less  concerned  with  the  rights  of  the  people 
than  were  those  of  Massachusetts,  and  they  were  more  afraid 
of  "levelism".  They  drew  a  dark  picture  of  conditions  in  that 
colony,  of  "great  swelling  words"  against  government  and 
against  dignitaries  in  church  and  state  which  even  went  to  the 
extreme  of  condemning  all  government  and  breathing  sedition.31 
The  complaint  seems  to  have  been  most  bitter  during  the  regime 
of  Governor  Saltonstall,  who  was  instrumental  in  having  the 
Saybrook  Platform  made  law.  But  though  less  extreme,  it  con- 
tinued, and  certain  of  the  clergy  themselves  were  accused  by 
their  brethren  of  stirring  up  sedition.  During  this  period  the 
ministers  chosen  to  give  the  election  sermon  described  strongly 
the  dangers  of  "levelism".  It  would  mean,  so  they  said,  the 
destruction  of  all  government  and  was  contrary  to  the  will  of 
God,  who  has  decreed  that  there  shall  be  differences  of  degree 
among  men.  Some,  however,  implied  and  a  few  declared  that  the 
rulers  were  themselves  to  blame.  Thus  Eleazar  Williams,  in 
1723,  after  lamenting  the  licentious  and  levelling  spirit  of  the  day 
and  the  mighty  desire  for  land  among  all  classes,  suggested  that 
the  rulers  see  whether  there  were  not  fault  among  them  to  ac- 
count for  their  being  "the  song  and  common  talk  of  the  Drunkard 
over  their  Cups."32  Many  other  ministers  stated  in  general  terms 
the  duty  of  rulers  to  safeguard  the  rights  of  the  people  in  church 
and  state. 

31  Connecticut  Election  Sermons,  Wakeman,  1685,  p,  27;  Buckingham,  1711, 
seems  to  be  quoted  in  part  from  Wakeman;  Whitman,  1714,  p.  28;  Cutler,  1717, 
pp.  49,  55,  says  there  is  still  reason  to  complain  of  Injustice,  Fraud,  and  Op- 
pression; Estabrook,  1718,  p.  23;  Marsh,  1721,  pp.  25-28,  speaks  of  a  mighty  spirit 
in  the  Assembly  and  out  of  it  for  land;  Williams,  Sermon,  1741,  pp.  38-39,  same; 
Williams,  1723,  pp.  16-20,  says  some  are  saying:  "All  men  are  of  the  same  flesh 
and  blood,  and  why  should  any  exercise  Government  over  others?"  and  suggests  that 
rulers  may  be  largely  to  blame;  J.  Allen,  Thanksgiving  Sermon,  1722;  A.  Mather, 
1725,  pp.  26-27,  19-20,  hopes  that  under  a  new  governor  he  will  hear  no  more  of 
"Arbitrary  Power  &  Despotic  Proceedings  among  us."  Russel,  1730,  p.  14; 
Whittelsey,  Sermon,  1731,  pp.  30-32,  says  some  would  "Raze  to  the  Foundation 
the  whole  Constitution,  rather  than  submit  to  a  supposed  Injury;  Adams,  1733, 
pp.  57-58,  63,  65  speaks  of  some  ministers  who  head  "uneasie  parties"  against 
Government;  J.  Marsh,  1736,  p.  19;  Eliot,  1738,  p.  44.  Others  after  1740  are 
referred  to  in   Chaps.   V  and  VI. 

82  E.  Williams,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1723,  p.  41.  In  using  election  ser- 
mons one  must  take  into  account  their  tendency  to  conform  to  type,  as  well  as 
the  fact  that  the  ministers  who  delivered  them  were  chosen  by  the  General  As- 
sembly and  that  it  seems  to  have  been  a  matter  of  long  custom  to  bewail  the 
evils   of   the  time. 


42  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

It  was  the  desire  to  show  clearly  how  greatly  it  was  to  men's 
interest  to  support  government,  to  fulfil  their  obligations  to 
civil  rulers,  that  led  Jared  Eliot,  the  pastor  of  Killingworth  and 
the  friend  and  correspondent  of  Benjamin  Franklin,  to  under- 
take in  1738  a  careful  consideration  of  the  nature  of  gov- 
ernment. This  is  the  first  work  by  any  one  of  the  New  England 
clergy,  so  far  as  can  be  learned,  which  quotes  freely  from  Locke, 
Puffendorf,  and  Rapin,  at  the  same  time  mentioning  them  by 
name.  Eliot  begins  his  sermon  by  discussing  man  in  a  state  of 
nature  and  says  that  an  exact  account  of  such  an  one  is  given  in 
the  account  of  Ishmael.  He  dilates  upon  the  checks  and  bal- 
ances of  the  British  government,  upon  its  growth  since  the  days 
of  the  Anglo-Saxons,  and  lauds  it  as  a  legal  government,  the 
corner-stone  of  which  is  that  "no  man's  Life,  Limb,  Name  or 
Estate,  shall  be  taken  away  but  by  his  Peers,  and  by  the  known 
Law  of  the  Land."  The  governments  in  the  British  plantations 
are  but  as  "little  Models"  of  that  at  home,  with  the  same  liber- 
ties but  with  the  additional  liberty  of  electing  their  own  rulers 
from  among  themselves.  He  discusses  sovereign  authority  and 
declares  it  a  fundamental  principle  of  government  that  it  must 
lodge  somewhere.  The  community,  he  says,  has  placed  it  in  the 
legislature33  and  therefore  individuals  have  nothing  to  do  to 
judge  of  the  expediency  of  the  laws.  There  is  no  government 
where  there  is  absolute  liberty.  Statutes  are  a  restraint  upon 
natural  liberty,  but  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  all  such 
liberty  as  is  good  for  the  whole.  Law  indeed  is  the  very  basis  of 
civil  liberty.34  Thus  one  sees  how  mistaken  are  the  men  who 
think  of  government  as  only  "the  contrivance  of  artful  and 
designing  Men,  who  would  make  themselves  great  at  the 
Expence  of  their  poor  Neighbours ;  who  would  oppress  the 
Poor,  and  grind  the  face  of  the  Needy."  Eliot  defines  a  "Legal, 
Limited  &  well  Constituted  Government"  as  one  in  which  the 
ruler  limits  himself  for  the  good  of  the  subject,  an  act  in  itself 

33  Jared  Eliot  and  Samuel  Hall,  also  of  Conn.,  are  the  only  two  read  who  be- 
stow upon  the  legislature  absolute  sovereignty.  Hall  in  1746  says  that  "...  the 
Legislature  is  Accountable  to  none:  There  is  no  Authority  above  them;  none  can 
call  them  to  an  Account,  but  only  that  God  by  whom  Kings  reign  and  Princes  de- 
cree Justice."  Eliot  believed  that  in  extreme  cases,  where  the  Government  disre- 
garded divine  law,   it  might  be  opposed. 

34  See  also  Dickinson,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1755,  p.  11;  Stevens, 
Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1761,  pp.  70-71;  Mayhew,  Massachusetts  Election 
Sermon,  1754,  pp.  20-21.  Various  others  give  expression  to  the  same  idea,  a 
common  one. 


Theories  Concerning  Rulers  in  Church  and  State        43 

of  sovereign  power.35  If,  however,  laws  should  be  made  by  this 
government  which  are  inconsistent  with  the  laws  of  God  or 
which  sap  the  foundations  of  the  commonwealth,  men  must 
exercise  their  right  of  discretion  and  must  obey  God  rather 
than  men,  as  the  Apostles  did.36 

Among  those  who  dwelt  long  upon  the  nature  and  advantages 
of  a  balanced  government  and  who  were  outspoken  in  laying 
the  evils  of  the  day  upon  the  general  Court  was  Charles  Chaun- 
cey,  of  Boston,  the  same  Chauncey  who  was  the  friend  of  Sam- 
uel and  John  Adams  and  of  the  other  Revolutionary  leaders,  one 
of  the  most  ardent  and  influential  in  the  American  cause.  His 
sermon  of  1747  won  so  much  criticism  from  the  General  Court 
that  there  was  some  question  of  printing  it.  "It  shall  be  printed", 
he  said,  "whether  the  General  Court  print  it  or  not.  And  do  you, 
Sir,  .  .  .  say  from  me  that,  if  I  wanted  to  initiate  and  instruct 
a  person  into  all  kinds  of  iniquity  and  double  dealing,  I  would 
send  him  to  our  General  Court."37  And  printed  it  was. 

Much  of  this  sermon  is  like  many  before  its  day,  recommend- 
ing the  election  of  able  men  who  understand  the  laws  and  con- 
stitution, the  nature  of  government  and  the  privileges  of  the 
people;  discussing  the  origin  of  government  in  the  reason  of 
things  and  at  the  same  time  its  foundation  in  the  will  of  God, 
since  reason  and  the  voice  of  God  are  one;  stating  that  God 
wills  that  some  rule  and  some  be  in  subjection  and  this  for  the 
purpose  of  guarding  "men's  lives,  liberties  and  properties" ; 
that  rulers  must  confine  themselves  within  the  limits  of  the 
constitution  by  which  their  power  is  delegated  to  them.  "Espe- 
cially", he  says,  "is  this  an  important  point  of  justice,  where 
the  constitution  is  branched  into  several  parts  ...  in  order  to 
preserve  a  ballance  in  the  whole.  .  .  *  They  have  severally  and 
equally  a  right  to  that  power  which  is  granted  to  them  in  the 
constitution."38 

35  J.  Eliot,  p.  36.  See  also  pp.  11-39.  See  Appendix.  An  example  of  a  different 
conception,  one  much  more  common,  is  in  Frink,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon, 
1758,  p.  73:  "It  remains  ....  that  this  Authority  be  conveyed  to  this  or  that 
individual  Person  or  Family,  by  Compact,  Consent  or  Choice  of  the  Persons 
governed  .  .  .  And  this  is  what  men  call  a  legal  Right  or  Title  to  the  Crown,  i.  e., 
a  Title  by  the  Laws  &  Constitution  of  the  Land."  Quoted  from  Whitby's  Annota- 
tions. 

38  J.  Eliot,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1738,  pp.  13-14.  Stevens,  Massachu- 
setts Election  Sermon,  1761,  p.  36,  also  mentions  the  Apostles  as  claiming  their 
rights  and  privileges  as  men  and  as  Christians  and  obeying  God  rather  than  man. 

37  Sewall,  Letter  Book,   II,  pp.   236-237,  note. 

38  C.   Chauncey,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1747,  pp.    14-15. 


44  The  Nezv  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

Chauncey  discusses  also  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  sub- 
ject. In  all  governments,  he  says,  there  is  a  reserve  of  certain 
rights,  in  some  few  and  small,  in  some  many  and  great,  and  it  is 
no  wonder  that  the  people  keep  a  jealous  eye  upon  these  rights 
and  think  to  defend  them  at  any  cost,  especially  when  they  had 
been  won  through  great  hardships  by  their  ancestors.  "Shall 
such  valuable,  dearbought  rights  be  neglected,  or  invaded  by 
the  rulers  of  a  people,"39  one  of  whose  chief  ends  is  to  per- 
petuate and  secure  a  full  enjoyment  of  them?  Nay,  rulers 
must  defend  them  against  all  threat,  either  by  arbitrary  rulers 
or  seditious  people.  Like  certain  other  ministers,  Chauncey  talks 
of  the  danger  to  a  people's  liberties  from  men  who  "strike  in 
with  the  popular  cry  of  liberty  and  privilege,"40  thus  working 
themselves  into  the  good  opinion  of  the  populace  as  lovers  of 
their  country  when  all  they  are  aiming  at  is  their  own  power. 
Such  he  regards  as  dangerous  enemies  to  the  community. 

It  was  only  three  years  later  that  Jonathan  Mayhew,  of  the 
West  Church,  Boston,  preached  his  famous  sermon  on  Unlim- 
ited Submission  and  Non-Resistance  to  the  Higher  Powers. 
This  sermon  is  the  one  most  frequently  quoted,  but  his  election 
sermon  of  1754  has  many  of  the  same  ideas  and  phrases. 
Although  Mayhew  was  bolder  in  speech  than  many  of  the  other 
ministers,  there  is  nothing  in  either  of  these  sermons  which 
may  not  be  found  in  many  others.  Their  fame  is  due  partly  to 
their  vigorous  language  and  partly  to  Mayhew's  renown  as  a 
young,  radical  preacher,  engaged  in  the  theological  controversies 
of  the  day,  who  drew  young  men  to  him,  who  played  a  con- 
spicuous part  in  the  trouble  over  an  American  Episcopate,  and 
whose  sermons  were  read  widely,  both  in  England  and  America. 
He  was  a  bold  and  passionate  advocate  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty.  From  1748  until  his  death  in  1766  he  preached  and 
wrote  for  the  cause  so  dear  to  his  heart.  He  had  studied  Locke, 
Milton,  Sydney,  and  others  and  was  instrumental  in  having 
many  books  on  government  sent  to  Harvard  and  elsewhere  by 
his  friend,  Thomas  Hollis,  of  London.41 

39  Ibid.,  p.  33.  See  also  E.  Williams,  A  Seasonable  Plea,  1744,  and  Hunn,  Con- 
necticut  Election    Sermon,    1744.    p.    14. 

40  Chauncey,    p.    34. 

41  Bradford,  Life  of  Dr.  Mayhew,  p.  18,  note;  Thornton,  Pulpit  in  the  Ameri- 
can Revolution,  pp.  xxxii-xxxiv.  For  fuller  account  of  his  work  and  influence  see 
later  chapters. 


Theories  Concerning  Rulers  in  Church  and  State        45 

The  occasion  for  Mayhew's  sermon  was  the  order  to  observe 
the  birthday  of  Charles  I,  but  the  liberal  Congregationalist 
was  aroused  by  the  activity  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation 
of  the  Gospel  and  the  growth  of  Episcopalianism  and  he  was 
doubtless  influenced  also  by  the  growing  antagonism  of  the  day 
to  any  kind  of  arbitrary  control,  English  or  colonial.  This 
famous  sermon  was  a  fiery  thing,  which  must  have  stirred  the 
blood  of  his  hearers  in  the  old  West  Church.  "There  is  nothing 
in  Scripture  which  supports  this  scheme  of  political  principles", 
he  asserts  of  the  doctrine  of  unlimited  submission.  "Neither  God 
nor  nature  has  given  any  man  a  right  of  dominion  over  any 
society  independently  of  that  society's  approbation  and  consent 
to  be  governed  by  him"  ^"disobedience  is  not  only  lawful  but 
glorious"  to  those  that  "enjoin  things  that  are  inconsistent  with 
the  demands  of  God."42  The  people  themselves  are  to  judge 
when  resistance  is  right,  nor  will  they  be  inclined  to  judge 
unwisely.  A  ruler  is  as  much  bound  by  law  and  the  constitution 
as  are  the  people.  But  Mayhew,  like  his  fellows  and  predeces- 
sors, believed  also  that  law  was  the  measure  not  only  of  the 
magistrate's  power  but  of  the  subject's  obedience  and  submis- 
sion.43 "Only",  he  observes,  "it  is  very  strange  we  should  be 
told,  at  this  time  of  day,  that  loyalty  and  slavery  mean  the 
same  thing;  tho'  this  is  plainly  the  amount  of  that  doctrine 
which  some,  even  now,  have  the  forehead  to  ventilate,  in  order 
to  bring  a  reproach  upon  the  Revolution  [1688],  upon  the 
present  happy  settlement  of  the  crown,  and  to  prepare  us  foi 
the  dutiful  reception  of  an  hereditary  Tyrant."44 

These  and  like  sermons  and  pamphlets  show  clearly  the  con- 
tinuity and  strength  of  these  political  principles,  how  intimately 
they  were  associated  with  the  Bible,  which  was  interpreted  to 
give  them  a  divine  origin  and  sanction,  how  the  phrases,  through 
long  repetition  and  association  with  religion,  were  bitten  deep 
into  men's  minds  long  before  the  outbreak  of  trouble  with  Eng- 
land. It  becomes  abundantly  evident,  after  studying  these  and 
like  words  of  the  ministers,  that  Samuel  Langdon,  of  Ports- 
mouth,  New   Hampshire,   was   voicing  a   common   conviction 

42  Mayhew,    Sermon,    1750,    in    Thornton   ed.,    pp.   81,    86,    87. 

43  Mayhew,   Election    Sermon,   1754,   p.    20. 

44  Ibid.,  pp.  20-21.  See  Sermons,  1748,  pp.  85-86,  for  discussion  of  duty  of 
magistrates  to  preserve  the  natural  rights  of  subjects,  and  Sermons,  1755,  pp. 
313-314,  for   necessity   of   submitting  only   to   "rightful    demands". 


46  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

when  in  1759  he  said  that  a  government  which  had  a  constitution 
agreeable  to  the  laws  of  nature,  serving  the  ends  of  society, 
securing  the  life,  liberty,  and  property  of  the  people,  was  pecul- 
iarly of  God  and  "conformable  to  the  perfect  pattern  of  his 
supreme  dominion."45 

45  S.   Langdon,    Sermon  at  Portsmouth,   1759,   pp.    9-10. 


Chapter  V 

POLITICAL  PHILOSOPHY  AND  ECCLESIASTICAL 
CONTROVERSY  BEFORE  1743 

Something  of  the  close  connection  between  religion  and  polit- 
ical theory  has  been  brought  out  in  the  preceding  chapters.  To 
realize  it  more  fully  and  to  gain  a  better  understanding  of  the 
long  background  and  the  true  meaning  of  many  of  the  Revo- 
lutionary arguments,  it  is  necessary  to  study  in  somewhat  more 
detail  the  religious  and  ecclesiastical  controversies  of  the  period 
and  especially  the  Great  Awakening  which  so  deeply  affected 
men's  emotions  and  thinking.  Such  a  study  will  serve  to  make 
more  clear  the  interest  of  the  New  Englander  in  fundamental 
law,  his  belief  that  any  violation  of  it  by  those  in  authority  was 
tyranny  and  that  revolt  against  such  tyranny  was  legal  and  not 
only  legal  but  a  religious  duty.  What  civil  and  religious  liberty, 
property,  and  equality  meant  to  both  clergy  and  laity  at  the 
opening  of  the  Revolution  cannot  be  fully  grasped  without  a 
study  of  the  Great  Awakening.  But  before  attempting  to  show 
how  the  familiar  terms  were  thus  vitalized  it  is  necessary  to 
review  briefly  their  earlier  meaning. 

Before  1740,  we  have  seen,  the  ministers  had  taught  that  civil 
liberty  was  a  natural  right.  The  natural  man  had  been  under  ho 
human  authority  of  any  sort.  He  was  free  to  do  what  he  liked 
for  his  own  advantage.1  But  under  civil  government  which  he 
set  up  for  his  own  good,  restraints  were  imposed  by  compact 
and  by  law  that  the  freedom  remaining  might  be  better  secured. 
Therefore,  liberty  did  not  mean  license.  On  that  point  the  min- 
isters were  unanimous.  As  to  how  much  liberty  remained  to  men, 
John  Wise,  alone,  wrote  that  only  so  much  was  given  up  as  was 
necessary  for  the  public  good.  But  though  not  distinctly  stated 
by  others  before  1740,  it  was  implied  in  the  emphasis  upon  the 
end  of  government  and  the  office  of  ruler.  Liberty  certainly 
meant  that  those  in  power,  chosen  by  the  people  directly  or  by 
original  compact,  were  also  limited  by  law  and  could  not  exert 
any  authority  over  them  beyond  those  legal  limits.  Most  of  the 

1  There  was  before  1740  much  talk  of  liberty  as  a  natural  right,  but  few  de- 
fined it  as  it  existed  in  the  natural  state.  John  Wise  in  1717  was  among  the  first 
to  do  so.  Eliot  in  1738,  was  another. 

[47] 


48  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

clergy  declared  that  the  people  were  under  obligation  to  obey 
authority  only  within  these  limits. 

Property,  another  natural  right,  was  as  frequently  asserted 
and  was  always  linked  with  liberty,  but  was  less  clearly  defined. 
It  evidently  meant  freedom  from  burdensome  taxation,  the 
assurance  that  the  fruit  of  a  man's  labor  would  not  be  taken 
from  him  by  arbitrary  means.  At  times  the  ministers  warned 
those  in  authority  that  people  who  were  put  to  unnecessary 
charge  were  oppressed  and  abused  and  that  rulers  were  not  per- 
mitted by  God  or  Nature  to  lay  such  burdens  upon  them.2  Jared 
Eliot  in  1738  gave  some  interesting  details  of  the  kind  of  taxes 
he  considered  just.  A  wise  government,  he  said,  may  at  times 
give  bounties  to  this  or  that  manufacture  provided  it  be  for  the 
good  of  the  whole,  although  the  people  might  find  fault  thereat ; 
it  may  lay  import  or  excise  duties  upon  such  things  as  are  super- 
fluous or  not  necessary  to  life  or  upon  such  as  may  by  their 
increase  become  hurtful  to  the  commonwealth ;  such  duties 
should  be  aimed  at  the  common  good,  not  private  gain.3  Just 
and  legal  taxation  was  not  an  invasion  of  the  natural  right  of 
property,  so  the  ministers  thought.  No  more  complete  account  of 
its  origin  or  nature  was  given  before  1740,  so  far  as  has  been 
learned. 

Theories  concerning  the  natural  equality  of  men  were  rarely 
discussed  by  the  clergy  before  1740.  As  will  be  seen  in  later 
chapters,  the  term,  as  it  was  used  later  in  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, was  applied  most  frequently  not  to  society  as  it  actually 
existed  but  to  the  original  state  of  nature  before  the  organiza- 
tion of  civil  government  and  seems  to  have  meant  that  men  in 
this  state  had  an  equal  right  to  the  fruit  of  their  labors  and 
that  no  man  had  any  authority  over  another.  It  was  frequently 
defined  as  meaning  equal  in  respect  to  authority.  John  Wise 
seems  to  have  been  the  only  minister  before  1740  to  write  of  the 
equality  of  the  state  of  nature  and  the  right  to  retain  that 
equality  under  civil  government  to  the  highest  degree  consistent 

2  Stoddard,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1703,  p.  IS;  Hancock,  Massachu- 
setts Election  Sermon,  1722,  pp.  24-25.  Although  they  did  not  directly  say  so, 
some  of  the  Connecticut  election  sermons  of  the  same  period  implied  the  same. 

3  Eliot,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1738,  p.  12.  The  Connecticut  election 
sermons  spoke  often  of  the  complaint  of  heavy  taxation  by  the  people  and  their 
belief  that  they  were  being  deprived  of  "liberty  and  property".  Eliot  and  many 
others  mentioned  this  wide-spread  indebtedness  of  the  people.  He  wondered  that 
honest  men  and  Christians  should  glory  in  cheating  the  people  through  customs 
dues. 


Controversy  before  1743  49 

"with  all  just  distinctions".4  This  implies  that  a  part  of  the 
original  equality  is  preserved  after  civil  government  is  organ- 
ized, and  the  problem  then  would  be  to  determine  just  how 
much  and  what  kind  should  be  retained. 

Many  of  the  clergy  of  this  period  were  deeply  concerned  over 
what  seemed  to  them  the  dangerous  tendency  to  ignore  dis- 
tinctions of  rank  in  existing  society.  Most  of  those  whose  dis- 
courses were  published  before  1740  would  seem  to  have  agreed 
with  Pemberton,  who  in  1710  said :  "Sure  we  may  be  since  the 
Apostasy,  there  is  Absolute  Necessity  of  Superiority  and  Power 
in  some,  and  Inferiority  and  Submission  as  to  others.  He  well 
understood  the  Nature  of  men,  and  of  Humane  Societies,  that 
say'd,  .  .  .  That  nothing  is  more  unequal  than  Equality.  .  .  . 
Levelism  is  therefore  an  open  Defiance  to  God,  his  Wisdom  and 
Will,  as  well  as  the  Reason  of  Mankind."5  Even  John  Wise, 
democrat  as  he  was,  implied  that  certain  distinctions  between 
men  were  necessary  and  just.  The  qualities  and  knowledge 
required  of  rulers,  both  in  church  and  state,  were  such  as  humble 
men  could  not  easily  attain.6  The  dislike  of  "levelism"  is  appar- 
ent throughout  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  and  to 
some  extent  later.  The  election  sermons,  especially  in  Connecti- 
cut, lament  the  tendency  of  the  people  to  ignore  distinctions  of 
rank  and  dress,  to  criticize  those  in  authority  over  them,  and 
even  to  wish  to  reduce  rulers  and  ruled  to  a  level.  One  must  of 
course  discount  these  sermons  to  some  extent.  The  ministers 
were  chosen  for  the  occasion  by  either  the  Assembly  or  Council 
and  as  a  rule  would  naturally  be  those  whose  known  opinions 
pleased  the  body  which  chose  them,  though  it  is  obvious  that 
some  of  them  indulged  in  a  free,  bold  tongue.  They  were  usually 
the  more  prominent  ministers  of  the  colony,  as  were  also  those 
who  published  pamphlets  other  than  sermons.  There  may  have 

4  Whether  Samuel  Moody,  John  White,  and  other  ministers  who  supported  Wise 
in  his  opposition  to  Synodical  control  of  the  churches  agreed  with  him  only  in 
the  matter  of  the  independence  of  the  churches  or  in  his  belief  in  democracy  as 
well    has   not    been    learned. 

B  Pemberton,   Election    Sermon,    1710,   pp.    15-16. 

6  The  election  sermons  and  many  other  works  of  the  clergy  emphasized  the 
training  and  learning  necessary  for  religious  and  secular  leaders,  some,  clergy- 
men believing  a  fair  degree  of  wealth  necesary  that  they  might  have  leisure  for 
study.  "There  are  men,"  said  Edward  Holyoke  in  1736,  "  who  because  of  their 
occupations,  cannot  get  Knowledge  which  fits  them  for  public  position",  such  a 
one  who  "holdeth  the  Plough  and  glorieth  in  the  Goad,  that  driveth  Oxen  and  is 
occupied  in  their  Labours,  and  whose  Talk  is  of  Bullocks"  (Massachusetts  Election 
Sermon,   1736,   pp.    19-20)). 


50  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

been  less  well-known  men  who  disagreed  but  who  did  not  pub- 
lish their  opinions. 

It  was  not  only  in  discourses  on  civil  government  that  argu- 
ments were  based  on  natural,  constitutional,  and  Christian 
rights,  but  in  those  on  ecclesiastical  government  as  well.  A 
glance  at  the  ecclesiastical  disputes  of  the  seventeenth  and  early 
eighteenth  centuries  will  throw  light  upon  the  arguments  used 
by  the  clergy  in  discussing  the  rights  of  laymen  and  in  asserting 
that  great  natural  and  Christian  liberty,  freedom  of  conscience 
and  of  judgment.  The  larger  part  of  the  Congregationalists 
believed  in  a  balanced  government  in  the  church  as  in  the  state, 
neither  democratic  with  power  in  the  hands  of  all  the  members, 
nor  aristocratic  with  the  power  in  the  hands  of  the  elders,  but 
rather  what  Davenport  called  "Aristocratico-Democratical".7 
Urian  Oakes  in  1673,  describing  the  "Congregational  Way", 
with  a  slight  change  of  wording  might  easily  be  describing  civil 
government  of  the  balanced  type.  "There  is  a  sweet  tempera- 
ment in  the  Congregational  Way ;  that  the  liberties  of  the  people 
may  not  be  overlaid  and  oppressed,  as  in  the  classical  way,  nor 
the  rule  and  authority  of  the  Elders  rendered  an  insignificant 
thing,  and  trampled  under  foot  as  in  the  way  of  the  Brownists ; 
but  that  there  may  be  a  reconciliation  or  due  concurrence  in  the 
balancing  of  the  one  justly  with  the  other."8  There  were,  how- 
ever, from  the  beginning  differences  of  opinion  and  practice. 
Some  were  accused  of  too  great  democracy,  of  allowing  the 
majority  to  rule,  even  if  the  elders  were  among  the  minority. 
Some,  on  the  other  hand,  were  accused  of  giving  undue  weight 
to  the  power  of  the  elders.9 

Another  subject  of  discussion  in  the  seventeenth  century  and 
one  involving  theories  of  government  and  liberty  was  that  of 
the  power  of  the  individual  church.  The  large  majority  of  Con- 

7  Davenport,  The  Power  of  the  Congregational  Churches,  p.  120.  See  also  Dex- 
ter's  Congregationalism  as  seen  in  its  literature,  pp.  426-27,  429;  Richard 
Mather's  Answer  to  32  Questions,  written  in  1639,  published  in  1643,  and  said 
by  Dexter  to  have  had  the  general  consent  of  Elders  in  the  Bay. 

8  Oakes,    Massachusetts    Election    Sermon,    1673,    quoted   from    Sprague,    I.  143. 

9  John  Cotton  began  a  series  of  discussions  as  early  as  1634.  Dexter  says  that 
Cotton  believed  Elders  were  to  do  business  and  people  to  submit.  Samuel  Stone,  of 
Hartford,  called  the  way  advocated  by  R.  Mather  "A  speaking  Aristocracy  in 
the  Face  of  a  silent  Democracy".  Rathband  in  1644  in  his  Brief e  Narration,  p. 
27,  speaks  of  variety  of  practice  in  New  England.  See  Dexter,  pp.  430  ff.,  460- 
61.  Dexter  thinks  Goodwin  and  Nye  referred  to  Plymouth  when  they  spoke  of 
New  England  churches  in  which  the  majority  ruled  even  when  the  pastors  were 
opposed. 


Controversy  before  1743  51 

gregationalists  and  all  the  Baptists  believed  that  each  church 
was  a  body  with  all  power  to  choose  its  officers  and  manage  its 
affairs.  The  Congregationalists  believed  in  calling  Councils  for 
advisory  purposes  only,  allowing  them  no  real  jurisdiction.  This 
was  a  point  insisted  upon  by  some  of  the  most  famous  early 
divines  and  thereafter  had  the  sanction  of  their  names.  Most 
of  those  adopting  the  Cambridge  Platform  of  1648  held  this 
view,  but  again  there  was  a  difference  of  interpretation,  some 
leaning  toward  Presbyterianism  and  some  thinking  little  of 
Councils  and  cherishing  their  complete  local  independence.10 
These  rights  of  the  churches  were  held  to  be  a  part  of  the 
liberty  granted  by  Christ.  In  the  state  men  might  grant  away  a 
part  of  their  liberty  if  they  saw  fit,  or  might  have  it  taken  away 
by  a  potent  enemy,  but  whatever  liberties  were  specially  granted 
to  Christians  by  the  great  Master  of  the  Church  could  not  be 
alienated  in  whole  or  in  part.11 

A  natural  right  which  was  also  peculiarly  a  Christian  privi- 
lege, so  the  new  England  ministers  believed,  was  liberty  of  con- 
science. This  was  fully  practiced  and  enacted  into  law  only  in 
Rhode  Island.12  Yet  it  was  preached  in  other  parts  of  New 
England,  was  a  part  of  their  faith,  and  a  fault  of  which  they 
were  accused  by  their  critics.  The  Confession  of  Faith  of  the 
Massachusetts  Churches  in  1680  defined  the  liberty  which  Christ 
has  purchased  for  His  disciples  as  meaning  that  God  alone  is 
Lord  of  the  conscience  and  has  left  it  free  from  any  command- 
ment of  men  not  contained  in  His  word  or  contrary  to  it ;  that 

10  J.  Cotton,  1643:  "No  church  hath  power  of  government  over  another  .  .  .  ** 
(Dexter,  Congregationalism  as  seen  in  its  literature,  pp.  424-25).  H.  Peter,  Answer 
of  the  Elders,  1643,  p.  iv,  denies  Independency,  but  says  they  cannot  discover 
that  they  should  be  "  'under  Canon,  or  power  of  any  other  church;  under 
their  Councell  we  are.  We  need  not  tell  the  wise  whence  Tyranny  grew  in 
Churches,  and  how  commonwealths  get  their  pressure  in  the  like  kind  '  "  (Dex- 
ter, p.  463).  See  also  pp.  460-61,  464,  509-11;  Result  of  a  Synod,  1646,  p.  64; 
Answer  of  Elders  &  Messengers,  1662,  pp.  79,  113-116;  Davenport,  Massachusetts 
Election    Sermon,    1669,    p.    13. 

11  Davenport,  The  Power  of  the  Congregational  Churches,  pp.  7,  123,  129-30; 
Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1669,  pp.  13-14.  See  also  Norton,  Massachusetts 
Election  Sermon,  pp.  7,  8,  11.  To  some  New  Englanders  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, this  meant  that  the  civil  magistrate  had  no  power  over  spiritual  matters. 
There  was  much  discussion  over  this  point.  For  a  full  account  see  Dexter,  Con- 
gregationalism as  seen  in  its  literature;  Walker,  Creeds  and  Platforms.  See  also 
Davenport,  Power  of  the  Congregational  Churches ;  Result  of  a  Synod,  1646,  and 
other  pamphlets  of  the  day. 

12  Morgan  Edwards,  Materials  for  a  History  of  the  Baptists  in  Rhode  Island, 
1771,  pp.  318-319:  "'Roger  Williams,  (saith  Gov.  Hopkins,  Prov.  Gazette),  justly 
claims  the  honor  of  having  been  the  first  legislator  in  the  world  that  fully  and  effect- 
ually provided  for  and   established  a  free,  full  and  absolute  liberty  of  conscience.'  " 


52  The  Nezv  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

to  obey  such  commands  would  betray  liberty  of  conscience ;  and 
that  to  require  implicit  faith  and  absolute  obedience  is  to  destroy 
both  liberty  of  conscience  and  reason.13  Samuel  Rutherford  said 
of  New  England  men  of  a  somewhat  earlier  day  that  liberty  of 
conscience  is  "their  intended  Idoll  in  the  bottome  of  their 
hearte".14  That  this  did  not  mean  what  we  call  religious  toler- 
ation is  too  well  known  to  need  comment,  but  at  the  least  it 
gave  a  starting-point  from  which  toleration  might  develop.  It 
obviously  depended  upon  the  interpretation  of  what  was  in 
God's  word  or  was  contrary  to  it. 

With  the  eighteenth  century  certain  of  these  problems  grew 
more  acute.  The  attempt  to  establish  a  Synod,  its  failure  in 
Massachusetts  and  its  partial  success  in  Connecticut,  has  already 
been  mentioned.  This  was  regarded  by  such  ministers  as  John 
Wise,  Samuel  Moody,  and  John  White,  and  by  many  of  the 
people,  as  an  effort  to  increase  the  power  of  the  clergy  and  to 
take  away  the  liberties  of  the  people.  Perhaps  in  answer  to  the 
satire  by  John  Wise,  The  Churches  Quarrel  Espoused,  pub- 
lished in  1713  and  reprinted  in  1715, 15  Increase  Mather  issued 
in  1716  a  Disquisition  concerning  Ecclesiastical  Councils  for 
the  purpose  of  proving  that  the  lay  delegates  to  such  councils 
had  as  decisive  a  vote  as  the  elders.  He  insisted  not  only  upon 
the  independence  of  the  particular  church  but  also  upon  the 
helpfulness  and  concurrence  of  councils  in  ordination  and  dis- 
missal of  pastors,  although  he  allowed  them  no  juridical 
power.16  To  clinch  his  argument  he  turned,  as  did  those  dis- 
cussing civil  government,  to  the  Light  of  Nature,  which,  he 

13  Confession  of  Faith  of  Massachusetts  Churches,  1680,  p.  261  in  1772  ed.  See 
also  Davenport,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1669,  p.  14. 

14  Dexter,  Congregationalism  as  seen  in  its  literature,  pp.  460-61  and  note; 
Rutherford,  A  Free  Disputation  against  Pretended  Liberty  of  Conscience,  pp. 
258-59,  quoted  from  Dexter;  Robert  Baillie,  Letters  and  Journals,  II.  179,  181, 
231,    254,    271,    etc. 

15  Cotton  Mather,  "Diary",  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  7th  Ser.,  VIII.  327,  says 
that  "a  furious  Man,  called  John  Wise  .  .  .  has  lately  published  a  foolish  Libel, 
against  some  of  us,  for  presbyterianizing  too  much  in  our  Care  to  repair  some 
Deficiences  in  our  Churches.  And  some  of  our  People,  who  are  not  only  tenacious 
of  their  Liberties,  but  also  more  suspicious  than  they  have  cause  to  be  of  a  De- 
sign in  their  pastors  to  make  abridgments  of  them;  are  too  much  led  into  Tempta- 
tion, by  such  Invectives  ..."  This  was  in  Sept.  1715.  Note  from  Sewall's  Diary, 
III.  51,  says  that  on  Aug.  2,  Mather  preached  and  censured  Wise — "called  it 
a  Satanic  insult  twice  over,  and  it  found  a  Kind  Reception."  Again  in  1717,  the 
year  of  the  publication  of  Wise's  Vindication,  Mather  wonders  what  he  can  do 
"that  the  poison  of  Wise's  cursed  Libel  may  have  an  Antidote?"   (p.   450.) 

16 1.  Mather,  A  Disquisition,  pp.  4-8,  believed  also  in  concurrent  power  of 
people   and   elders. 


Controversy  before  1743  53 

declared,  directed  to  the  establishment  of  Synods  as  well  as  did 
holy  Scripture  itself.  He  argued  that  the  vote  of  the  majority, 
elders  being  reckoned  as  no  more  important  than  lay  delegates, 
was  decisive  and  that  neither  churches  nor  persons  whose  case 
called  for  a  Council  ought  to  have  their  liberties  infringed. 
"Popery  came  in  at  this  door,  of  Pastors  assuming  more  to 
themselves  than  belongs  to  them,  and  the  Fraternities  readiness 
to  part  with  what  was  theirs.  .  .  ."  It  had  been  argued,  he 
said,  that  this  would  make  it  possible  for  "Ignorant  Mechanicks" 
to  outvote  their  learned  pastors,  and  he  proceeded  to  a  most 
interesting  defence  of  "Mechanicks",  declaring  that  only  the 
"prelatists"  among  New  England  ministers  were  opposed  to 
their  participation  in  Councils.  There  were  mechanics,  he  said, 
who  though  they  did  not  excel  in  "Humane  Learning"  were  yet 
so  well  versed  in  the  Scriptures  and  of  such  excellent  natural 
accomplishments  that  they  might  be  very  useful  in  Synods.17 

The  next  year  there  appeared  the  Vindication  of  John  Wise, 
proving  also  from  the  Light  of  Nature  that  each  church  was 
truly  a  proper  body  full  of  power  and  authority  to  govern  itself, 
as  were  all  democracies,  and  emphasizing  the  natural  equality 
and  liberty  of  all  men  and  their  right  to  judge  for  themselves 
what  was  most  for  their  happiness  and  well-being.  Thus  it  was 
an  ecclesiastical  controversy  that  occasioned  the  first  full  defi- 
nition of  that  natural  liberty  which  had  been  so  long  asserted, 
the  most  complete  analysis  of  the  social  compact  before  1763 
and  the  first  discussion  of  equality,  natural  and  civil. 

Although  the  effort  to  form  a  Synod  failed  in  Massachusetts, 
the  discussion  continued.  In  1732  William  Homes,  of  Chilmark, 
published  a  pamphlet  supporting  Synodical  government,  in 
which  he  compared  civil  and  ecclesiastical  government.  Such  a 
government,  he  said,  "is  no  more  than  what  the  light  and  law 
of  nature  which  is  the  law  of  God  directs  all  large  societies 
unto,  that  have  the  government  of  themselves  committed  to 

'"Ibid.,  pp.  15  ff.  Mather  refers  to  Hooker's  Survey  of  Church  Discipline  and 
says  that  if  Mr.  Cotton  "has  happened  to  drop  a  notion  which  does  not  well  suit 
with  Congregational  Principles,  which  we  take  to  be  according  to  the  Scripture,  we 
are  not  bound  to  write  after  him"  (p.  26).  He  was  troubled  that  so  many  of  the 
ministers  in  New  England  differed  from  him.  He  seems  to  have  been  less  willing 
to  grant  power  to  Councils  and  Synods  than  were  Cotton  Mather  and  other  promi- 
nent ministers.  Pemberton,  Solomon  Stoddard,  Jonathan  Dickinson,  Thomas  Fox- 
croft,  Nathan  Prince,  Edward  Wigglesworth,  and  Benjamin  Colman  were  among 
those  who  favored  a  more  Presbyterian  way.  Moody,  White,  Wise,  John  Checkley, 
and  others  were  opposed.   See  Murdock,   Increase  Mather,  pp.   381   ff. 


54  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

them.  ...  So  it  is  in  Great  Britain  .  .  .  for  tho  every  free- 
holder has  a  natural  right  to  sit  in  parliament  yet  they  look  upon 
it  as  more  prudent  to  deligate.  .  .  ."18  And  again  it  was  upon 
natural  as  well  as  Christian  liberty  that  John  Barnard  called  in 
his  vigorous  defence  of  the  power  of  the  individual  church  and 
of  freedom  of  conscience  before  the  ministerial  convention  in 
1738.  Because  a  church,  he  said,  has  been  founded  in  mutual 
covenant,  in  the  free  consent  of  every  member,  no  person,  civil 
or  ecclesiastical,  has  any  right  to  impose  officers  upon  them  or 
divest  them  of  any  officer  without  their  own  consent  or  to  con- 
trol them  in  any  proper  action.  Such  a  church  is  not  in  sub- 
jection to  any  earthly  power.  As  it  is  the  right  of  every  Chris- 
tian to  judge  for  himself  in  what  way  Christ  will  be  acceptably 
served  by  him,  so  in  like  manner  it  is  the  right  of  each  church 
to  judge  for  itself  as  to  the  mode  and  form  of  worship  and  the 
discipline  most  agreeable  to  Him.19  As  it  is  an  invasion  of 
Christ's  authority  for  any  to  give  law  unto  His  Church,  so  it  is 
"a  tyrannical  Usurpation  upon  the  liberties  of  the  Christian 
Church  for  any  to  attempt  forcibly  to  reduce  other  churches  to 
their  Scaulting."20  Here  he  quotes  Hoadly,  "that  great  Master 
of  Reason  and  Thought" :  "The  civil  Magistrate  has  nothing 
to  do,  to  enter  with  his  Directions  and  Restraints,  of  Temporal 
Laws,  which  are  executed  by  Temporal  Power,  into  these  mat- 
ters. A  people  have  still  an  unalienable  Right  to  make  the  best 
of  their  Bibles.  And  therefore,  when  the  civil  Powers  shall  take 
upon  them,  to  form  churches,  to  ascertain  who  shall,  and  who 
shall  not,  belong  to  this  or  that  particular  church,  and  who  shall 
enjoy  the  full  Privileges,  which,  as  Members  of  that  Society, 
they  have  a  natural,  and  religious,  Right  to,  and  who  not;  and 
when  Church-Men,  under  whatever  Denomination,  shall  pre- 
tend to  exert  an  Authority  over  other  Churches,  and  anathema- 
tize those  that  will  not  tamely  submit  themselves  to  their 
Determinations ;  I  say,  if  ever  such  Principles  and  Practices 
should  obtain  among  us,  I  must  have  leave  to  lament  over  our 
Churches,  .  .  .  and  to  write  upon  them  Ichabod,  the  Glory  of 
New  England  is  departed.  For  whatever  Cry  any  may  make  of 
the  Platform,  and  Congregational  Principles,  it  is  very  certain 

1S  Wm.  Homes,  Proposals  of  Some  Things  .  .  .   ,  1732,  p.   11. 

19  J.    Barnard,    Convention    Sermon,    1738,   pp.    7ff. 

20  Ibid.,   p.   26. 


Controversy  before  1743  55 

that  by  such  Means,  the  very  Essence  of  Congregational 
Churches  will  be  utterly  overthrown."21 

Such  a  sermon  as  this,  delivered  before  the  annual  gathering 
of  ministers,  shows  that  Massachusetts  was  far  ahead  of  Con- 
necticut at  this  time  in  the  interpretation  of  Christian  liberty. 
In  Connecticut,  the  Saybrook  platform  had  been  adopted  by  a 
Synod  composed  of  twelve  ministers  and  four  laymen  only, 
eight  of  the  ministers  being  trustees  of  Yale  College,  at  that 
time  just  established  in  Saybrook.  Although  the  Synod  was  in 
no  way  representative,  its  platform  was  made  law  by  the  Con- 
necticut Assembly  in  1709  under  the  governorship  of  Salton- 
stall,  a  former  clergyman,  and  remained  on  the  statute  books 
until  1784.22  By  this  plan  there  were  organized  in  each  county 
one  or  more  consociations  of  churches  with  power  to  settle  all 
matters  of  discipline  and  to  ordain,  install,  and  dismiss  minis- 
ters. The  clergy  were  formed  into  associations  for  licensing 
candidates,  and  a  general  association  was  held  annually.  Still 
further  limiting  the  power  of  the  individual  church,  a  law  was 
passed  in  1717  which  permitted  a  majority  of  the  voters  of  a 
town  to  choose  the  minister,  whether  or  no  they  were  members 
of  the  church.23 

This  action  led  to  disastrous  quarrels  among  the  clergy  and 
people.  The  law  had  become  the  ecclesiastical  constitution,  as 
it  was  called,  and  to  those  in  its  favor  as  much  to  be  obeyed  as 
the  civil  constitution.  To  others  it  was  an  invasion  of  their 
Christian  liberty  and  therefore  null  and  void.  Certain  churches 
refused  to  accept  the  platform  and  announced  their  adherence 
to  the  older  Cambridge  Platform  which  made  Councils  advisory 

21  Ibid.,  pp.  26-27.  This,  so  far  as  has  been  found,  is  the  first  use  by  a  New 
England  minister  of  the  word  "unalienable,"  soon  to  become  so  common.  Barnard 
was  of  course  expressing  the  conservative  view  of  men  who  did  not  want  to 
change  the  old   way,   or  yield  to   Anglicanism. 

22  Parker,  "The  Congregational  Separates  of  the  18th  Century  in  Connecticut," 
New  Haven  Colony  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  VIII.  152-53,  204-08;  Trumbull,  History  of 
Connecticut,  I.  409-17;  Colonial  Records  of  Connecticut,  V.  87.  The  Platform  ad- 
mitted of  a  difference  of  interpretation  and  different  parts  of  Connecticut  inter- 
preted it  differently,  Fairfield  County  Consociation  being  inclined  to  give  the 
Consociation  as  much  power  as  a  Presbytery,  and  New  Haven  County  more  nearly 
maintaining  Congregationalism. 

23  Parker,  p.  154;  Colonial  Records  of  Connecticut,  VI.  33-34;  Palfrey,  III.  341; 
Cobb,  Rise  of  Religious  Liberty  in  America,  p.  258.  In  1727-29  laws  were  passed 
allowing  Baptists,  Episcopalians,  and  Quakers  to  pay  rates  to  their  own  churches,  as 
in  Massachusetts.  In  New  Hampshire  a  law  of  1714  allowed  freeholders  of  towns 
to  employ  a  minister.  All  were  taxed  for  his  support  unless  conscientiously  of 
another  sect  and  regularly   attending  a   different  service. 


56  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

only.24  It  seemed  to  many  of  the  people  an  attempt  to  give  the 
ministers  the  sole  power  of  church  government  and  to  destroy 
the  privileges  of  the  brotherhood.  It  was  an  effort  of  the  clergy, 
so  they  thought,  to  "lord  it  over  God's  heritage."  They  spoke  of 
"Priest-Craft",  of  an  "Ambitious  and  Designing  Clergy."25 
There  were  divisions  among  the  clergy  as  well,  some  accusing 
their  brethren  of  leading  the  "uneasie  parties"  against  the  gov- 
ernment,26 others  of  trying  to  invade  the  liberties  of  the  people. 
It  was  in  part  this  quarrel  which  had  led  the  clergy  to  enlarge 
upon  the  meaning  of  lawful  authority  and  the  duty  of  sub- 
mission on  the  one  hand  and,  on  the  other,  upon  the  rights  and 
liberties  of  the  people  and  the  limitations  upon  the  rulers.  Per- 
haps owing  in  part  to  these  quarrels,  religion  had  become  to 
many  mere  formalism.  There  were  ministers  who  had  ceased 
to  demand  a  definite  religious  experience  either  of  their  people 
or  of  themselves  and  were  content  to  preach  morality  and 
sobriety  and  doctrines  that  had  lost  their  vitality.27  There  was 
now  and  again  among  the  people  sharp  criticism  of  the  clergy 
for  dullness  of  sermon  and  deadness  of  spirit,  for  interest  only 
in  getting  their  salaries  promptly  paid.  There  was  among  cer- 
tain of  the  clergy  bitter  complaint  of  their  people,  their  unwil- 
lingness to  pay  the  minister's  rates,28  their  absorption  in  mate- 
rial interests,  their  lack  of  respect  for  and  interest  in  spiritual 
matters.29  Into  the  middle  of  these  disputes  came  the  Great 
Awakening. 

There  had  been  signs  of  a  stirring  of  the  spirit  here  and 
there,  notably  under  Jonathan  Edwards  at  Northampton  in 
1734-35,30  but  it  was  not  until  the  arrival  of  George  Whitefield 
in  New  England  in  1740  that  the  great  revival  swept  through 
the  land.  During  this  first  visit  ministers  and  people  welcomed 
him  gladly  and  churches  and  colleges  were  freely  opened  to 

24  Trumbull,  History  of  Connecticut,  II.  87-103.  The  Eccles.  Papers  in  manu- 
script in  Conn.  State  Library  give  many  illustrations  of  these  and  similar  quar- 
rels. 

15  T.   Cutler,  Connecticut  Election   Sermon,   1727,  p.   55. 

M  E.    Adams,    Connecticut    Election    Sermon,    1733,    p.    57. 

"Trumbull,  History  of  Connecticut,  II.  3-5,  103-05;  Clark,  Congregational 
Churches   in   Massachusetts,    pp.    139-44,    154. 

28  Connecticut  Election  Sermons  of  1724  by  Woodbridge,  p.  22;  of  1727  by 
Cutler,  p.   52;   of   1725  by  A.   Mather,  pp.   33,   39. 

29  Blake,  The  Separates  of  New  England,  pp.  32-33;  Clark,  pp.  139-45;  Walker, 
History  of  Congregational  Churches,  pp.  103-05,  113,  170-82,  251-53;  Trumbull, 
II.  3-5;   103-05;  Holyoke,  Convention  Sermon,   1741,  pp.   24-25. 

50  For   full    account   see   Tracy,    The    Great   Awakening. 


Controversy  before  1743  57 

him.  He  charmed  men  by  his  eloquence  and  held  them  by  his 
sincerity.  "The  excellent,  lovely,  heavenly  Whitefield",  he  was 
called  by  the  enamored  Governor  Belcher.31"He  was  the  sub- 
ject of  all  our  Talk",  wrote  Mr.  Cutler  of  Boston,  to  the  Bishop 
of  London  in  1740,  "and  to  speak  against  him  was  neither  cred- 
ible nor  scarce  safe.  .  .  .  Indeed  the  bitterest  Zeal  about  him  is 
among  the  Dissenting  Laity  who  are  for  him  by  a  vast  majority. 
The  Ruling  part  of  the  Clergy  are  for  him  almost  everywhere, 
but  the  Major  part  only  in  this  Town — Throughout  the  Prov- 
ince, they  say  3/4  tho  are  against  Him.  .  .  .  His  Journals, 
Sermons  and  Pamphlets  are  reprinted  and  eagerly  bought  here, 
and  our  Pulpits  &  Presses  are  never  free  from  such  Doctrines."32 

Certain  of  Whitefield's  teachings  are  of  special  significance. 
He  believed  that  there  were  certain  fundamental  divine  laws 
which  a  Christian  subject  must  first  obey  and  that  he  had  the 
right  to  question  and,  if  necessary,  to  break  rules  and  laws  that 
were  contrary  to  these  principles.  He  preached  this  freedom 
openly.  When  accused  of  breaking  the  church  canons,  he  wrote 
to  the  Bishop  of  London :  "Your  Lordship  knows  full  well  that 
Canons  and  other  church  laws  are  good  and  obligatory  when 
conformable  to  the  laws  of  Christ  and  agreeable  to  the  liberties 
of  a  free  people;  but  when  invented  and  compiled  by  men  of 
little  hearts  and  bigotted  principles  .  .  .  and  when  made  use 
of  only  as  ends  to  bind  up  the  hands  of  a  zealous  few,  they 
may  be  very  legally  broken."33 

Secondly,  Whitefield  taught  that  all  men,  rich  and  poor,  wise 
and  ignorant,  shared  in  the  gospel  of  Christ.  Consciousness  of 
the  indwelling  spirit  of  God,  the  "new  birth",  was  the  one  thing 
needful.  No  man,  however  rich,  however  powerful,  but  must 
share  the  common  experience ;  and  all  men,  having  this  experi- 
ence, were  equal  in  the  fellowship  of  Christ.  So  common  men, 
"the  rabble",  crowded  to  hear  him.34  Men  here  and  there  began 
to  say  that  a  learned  ministry  was  unnecessary  and  they  gath- 

31  Belcher  Papers,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  6th  Ser.  Vol.  VII.,  Pt.  II.,  p.  521;  also 
pp.    538,  541. 

35  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  III.  347-48.  For  further  detail  see  Tyerman,  Life 
of  the  Rev.  George  Whitefield,  2  vols.;  Whitefield,  Works,  vols.  I-VI.  The  Boston 
Weekly  News  Letter,  Oct.  16,  1740,  reports  his  farewell  address  on  the  Common 
to  a  supposed  23,000  people. 

33  Whitefield,   Works,  III.  163.   See  also   IV.  25. 

34  Ibid.,  IV.  138-39;  Tyerman,  II.  12,  44;  Perry,  Historical  Collections,  IV.  83; 
B.   Colman,   Souls  Flying  to  Jesus  Christ,  pp.   7,  9. 


58  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

ered  about  simple  men  who  felt  themselves  inspired  of  God  to 
preach. 

In  the  third  place,  Whitefield  had  a  tolerance,  amazing  in  his 
day,  of  all  kinds  of  church  government  and  creeds,  a  tolerance 
far  too  broad  to  admit  of  any  alliance  between  church  and  state. 
Many  times  in  letters  and  sermons  he  rejoices  in  this  freedom.33 
These  beliefs  Whitefield  proclaimed  by  means  of  sermons  heard 
by  thousands  of  people  as  he  preached  them  from  pulpit,  com- 
mon, and  court-house  steps.  They  were  read  by  thousands  more 
as  edition  after  edition  was  published  and  scattered  through  the 
land.36 

Such  a  man  as  George  Whitefield  could  not  travel  through 
the  colonies  without  arousing  angry  opposition  and  bitter  strife, 
and  still  more  his  followers,  who  shared  his  earnestness  but 
lacked  his  sweet  and  tolerant  spirit.  In  his  published  journal 
were  unflattering  accounts  of  the  ministry  and  the  colleges.  He 
called  many  of  the  former  "unconverted"  and  the  latter  homes 
of  darkness  rather  than  light.37  After  Whitefield's  visit,  other 
clergymen  took  up  the  work,  especially  in  Connecticut,  and  went 
about  as  itinerant  preachers,  among  them  one  James  Davenport, 
a  fanatic,  who  came  to  New  England  in  1741,  and  denounced 
some  of  the  ministers  in  their  own  pulpits.  His  excited  preach- 
ing and  that  of  other  itinerants  caused  strange  outbursts  among 
the  people — cries,  faintings,  and  other  bodily  manifestations 
auch  as  are  often  an  accompaniment  of  great  religious  emotion. 
There  arose  also  a  spirit  of  questioning  and  of  discussion,  a  test- 
ing of  authorities  by  the  new  standards.  Students  began  to 
criticize  their  tutors,  congregations  their  ministers ;  laymen, 
some  of  whom  were  of  the  poorer  classes,  took  it  upon  them- 
selves to  preach  and  exhort.  Churches  were  riven  in  twain. 

85  See  Tyerman,  I.  5-16,  438,  446,  451-52,  495,  513,  II.  174;  Whitefield,  Works,  I. 
140;  Belcher,  George  Whitefield,  p.  207.  Belcher  says  that  once,  from  the  balcony  of 
the  Philadelphia  Court  House,  Whitefield  exclaimed:  "Father  Abraham,  who  have 
you  in  heaven?  'Any  Episcoplians?'  'No.'  'Any  Presbyterians?'  'No.'  'Any  Baptists?' 
'No.'  'Any  Methodists,  Seceders,  or  Independents?'  'No,  No!'  'Why  who  have  you 
there?'  'We  don't  know  those  names  here.  All  who  are  here  are  Christians.'  Oh,  is 
that  the  case?  Then,  God  help  me!  and  God  help  us  all  to  forget  party  names  and  to 
become   Christians  in  deed   and  truth." 

38  See  Boston  News  Letter,  October  16,  Nov.  6,  1740;  Whitefield's  Works,  I.  274, 
II.  124,  III.  106-08,  305-06,  310,  312,  426;  Tyerman,  I.  38;  Perry,  Historical 
Collections,  III.  348.  Whitfield  made  seven  journeys  to  America  between  1740  and 
1770,   in   most  of  which  he  visited   New   England. 

37  Dexter,  Documentary  History  of  Yale  University,  p.  347;  Quincy,  History  of 
Harvard    University,   pp.    40-41. 


Controversy  before  1743  59 

Ministers  quarreled  with  brother  ministers.  Some  gave  their 
whole  hearts  to  the  cause,  some  believed  that  the  awakening 
was  so  genuine  and  so  greatly  needed  that  they  could  forgive 
while  regretting  its  excesses,  but  some  hated  it  root  and  branch. 
Men  were  divided  into  "Old  Lights",  those  who  opposed  the 
movement,  and  "New  Lights",  the  most  extreme  of  whom  were 
known  as  "Separates"  or  "Strict  Congregationalists".  And 
there  began,  especially  in  Connecticut,  a  period  of  strife  and 
persecution.38 

In  Connecticut  some  of  the  leading  ministers  were  bitter 
enemies  to  the  revival,  as  were,  in  general,  the  magistrates  and 
chief  gentlemen  of  the  colony.  They  tried  in  all  ways  to  sup- 
press the  movement.  They  attempted  to  confine  those  favoring 
it  to  their  own  pulpits  and  to  refuse  men  of  other  colonies  who 
preached  reform  the  right  to  enter  Connecticut.  As  early  as 
May,  1741,  the  Association  of  Ministers  of  New  Haven  County 
had  voted  unanimously  not  to  permit  a  man  under  ordinary 
circumstances  to  preach  in  any  pulpit  but  his  own,  unless  with 
the  express  approval  of  the  regularly  settled  minister  of  the 
parish.39  In  October  the  legislature  called  a  general  consociation 
of  churches  which  met  in  November  at  Guilford  and  took  a 
firm  stand  against  itinerants.40  In  May,  the  legislature  forbade 
an  itinerant  to  preach  in  a  parish  without  the  consent  of  the 
regular  minister,  under  penalty  of  losing  his  salary  and  giving 
bonds  for  his  good  behavior  or,  if  he  were  not  a  minister  of 
Connecticut,  of  being  expelled  as  a  vagrant  from  the  colony.41 
In  1743  the  legislature  repealed  the  toleration  act  of  170842  and 

38  For  full  account,  see  Tracy,  Great  Awakening ;  Trumbull,  History  of  Con- 
necticut, II ;  Prince,  Christian  History,  2  vols. ;  Blake,  The  Separates,  or  Strict 
Congregationalists  of  New  England;  Parker,  The  Congregational  Separates  of  the 
Eighteenth  Century  in  Connecticut.  Among  the  most  conspicious  itinerants  were 
Jonathan  Parsons,  of  Lyme,  Benjamin  Pomtioy,  of  Hebron,  Eleazar  Wheelock, 
of  Lebanon,  Joseph  Bellamy,  of  Bethlem,  and  John  Graham,  of  Southbury,  in 
Connecticut,   and  Jonathan    Edwards    in    Massachusetts. 

39  Dexter,  Biographical  Sketches  of  Yale  Graduates,  1701-1745,  p.  662.  See  also 
Parsons,  "Elisha  Williams,"  New  Haven  Colony  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  VIII.  202. 

40  Walker,  History   of  Congregational  Churches,  pp.   261-62. 

41  Records  of  the  Colony  of  Connecticut,  VIII.  454-57,  521;  Trumbull,  II.  127-31. 

42  Records  of  Conn.,  VIII.  522.  In  all  the  New  England  colonies  except  Rhode  Is- 
land, there  was  little  real  tolerance  of  other  sects  than  the  Congregationalists 
and  Presbyterians.  By  1729,  however,  Baptists,  Episcopalians,  and  Quakers  were 
allowed  to  have  their  own  churches  and  pay  their  assessment  to  their  own  clergy 
and  were  not  taxed  to  build  Congregational  churches,  but  they  were  obliged  to 
gain  release  by  a  formal  connection  with  some  other  recognized  denomination. 
There  were,  however,  in  1740  only  a  few  belonging  to  any  sect  except  the  Con- 
gregational. 


60  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

a  new  act  was  passed  which  prevented  Congregationalists  from 
forming  another  Congregational  church  without  permission 
from  the  legislature.43  Yale  College  was  not  far  behind  the 
Assembly  in  severity.  In  1741  her  trustees  voted  that  "if  any 
Student  of  this  College  shall  directly  or  indirectly  say  that  the 
Rector,  either  of  the  Trustees  or  Tutors  are  Hypocrites,  carnall 
or  unconverted  Men,  he  Shall  for  the  first  Offense  make  a 
publick  Confession  in  the  Hall,  for  the  Second  Offence  be 
expelled."44 

The  associations  of  ministers  in  the  eastern  part  of  Con- 
necticut petitioned  the  Assembly  against  the  law  of  1742,  while 
those  of  Hartford  and  New  Haven  supported  it.45  Those  who 
opposed  it  argued  that  their  rights  under  the  constitution  and 
the  Act  of  Toleration  of  William  and  Mary  were  ignored,  their 
rights  under  their  covenants  with  their  churches  not  maintained 
and  that  they  were  denied  the  right  of  trial.  "We  humbly  con- 
ceive it  infringes  on  our  Natural  &  Lawfull  Right  as  Sub- 
jects,— for  as  Such  we  have  a  Right  to  have  our  Covenants 
with  our  People  fulfilled  and  till  we  are  by  proper  Judges 
according  to  our  Constitution  declared  guilty  of  Unfaithfulness 
to  Such  Covenants  our  People  are  in  Justice  holden  by  them. 
Yet  by  Said  Law  they  Seem  to  be  Set  loose,  &  Such  Covenants 
in  Fact  to  be  dissolved,  without  any  Ecclesiastical  Process  or 
Sentence  according  to  our  Constitution,  which  looks  to  us  incon- 
sistent with  ye  Rules  of  Common  Equity."46  They  protested 
against  the  interference  of  the  state  in  religious  affairs  and 
referred  to  Locke  and  his  "unanswerable  Letter  of  Toleration, 
which  we  are  glad  to  hear  is  like  to  have  a  new  Edition  in  this 
Country."47  But  in  spite  of  all  protests,  the  authorities  pro- 

43  Records  of  Connecticut,  VIII    521-22. 

44  Dexter,  Documentary  History  of  Yale  University,  p.  351;  "Thomas  Clap  and 
his  Writings,"  New  Haven  Colony  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  V.  254-55.  See  also  Louise 
Greene,  The  Development  of  Religious  Liberty  in  Connecticut,  for  full  account  of 
troubles  in   Connecticut. 

45Eccles.  Papers,  vol.  VII.,  nos.  261,  262  a,  263  a,  265,  267,  268   (C.  S.  L.). 

40  Ibid.,  no.  263  a.  See  no.  262  a;  VIII.,  no.  44  a;  various  others  concerning 
violation  of  covenant  are  found  in  the  collection.  Cf.  Separate  Papers,  I,  no.   151. 

47  Eccles.  Papers,  vol.  VII.,  no.  261,  from  Association  of  Fairfield  West.  The 
laws  were  upheld  by  Wm.  Worthington  in  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1744' 
E.  Whitman,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1745;  S.  Hall,  Connecticut  Election 
Sermon,  1746,  who  said,  however,  that  mutual  covenants  must  be  protected,  liberty, 
property,  etc.,  preserved.  Worthington  in  1744  said  that  they  had  often  heard  of 
late  of  the  natural  right  to  hear  whom  they  chose.  In  a  sense,  that  was  right,  be- 
cause if  men  did  not  like  a  minister  they  could  remove  elsewhere,  but  to  talk  of 
natural  right  to  have  any  minister  preach  in  a  church  was  absurd.  It  was  "to  tell 
of  natural   right  in   an  affair,   which   is   either  wholly   a   matter   of   pure   Institution, 


Controversy  before  1743  61 

ceeded  to  enforce  these  laws.  Boys  were  expelled  from  Yale 
for  attending  "Separate"  meetings,  ministers  were  deposed  for 
itineracy  or  for  ordaining  "Separate"  ministers,  men  and 
women  were  imprisoned  for  conscience's  sake,  Justices  of  the 
Peace  and  other  officers  who  were  "New  Lights"  were  removed 
from  office  and  "New  Light"  representatives  were  refused 
seats  in  the  assembly.48 

In  Massachusetts  there  was  not  so  much  difficulty.  Many  of 
the  leading  clergymen  were  Whitefield's  friends  and  the  gov- 
ernment did  not  interfere.  There  was  somewhat  more  opposi- 
tion, however,  after  the  publication  of  Whitefield's  Journals. 
In  1744  Harvard  College  published  a  testimony  against  the 
evangelist,  several  associations  of  ministers  declared  against 
itineracy,  bitter  pamphlets  were  issued  by  Chauncey  and 
others.49  When  Whitefield  returned  in  1745  the  Massachusetts 
clergy  who  denied  him  their  pulpits  accused  him  "of  a  design 
to  raze  the  foundations  of  our  churches  and  change  the  religion 
of  New  England."50  "What  you  have  done  and  others  who  have 
followed  your  example",  wrote  Edward  Wigglesworth,  of  Har- 
vard, in  a  public  letter,  "has  had  an  effect  more  extensive  and 

or  meer  Compact;  or  else  a  Mixture  of  these  two  and  only  these  two;  than  which 
nothing  is  more  absurd."  Surely  it  could  never  be  an  infringement  of  natural 
right  to  punish  idolatry.  "But  I  verily  believe,  that  if  one  of  these  old  Jews  had 
pleaded  his  natural  Right  to  understand  &  believe  for  himself,  and  obey  his 
own  Conscience,  which  bid  him  worship  an  Idol,  an  Answer  to  this  purpose,  would 
have  been  good  and  seasonable,  viz.  We  know  you  are  wrong."  Nor  will  it  do  to 
argue  that  that  was  a  theocracy  and  this  is  not.  God's  word  does  not  mean  that 
men  shall  be  protected  in  their  civil  rights  only  (pp..  11-15).  Cf.  J.  Todd,  Con- 
necticut  Election   Sermon,   1749. 

48  David  Brainerd  and  the  Cleavelands  were  expelled  from  Yale.  Seniors  were 
disciplined  for  having  Locke's  Essay  on  Toleration  printed.  See  Dexter,  Docu- 
mentary History  of  Yale  University,  pp.  368-72.  Rev.  Benjamin  Pomeroy,  of 
Hebron,  was  deposed  and  deprived  of  his  salary  for  seven  years  for  itinerant 
preaching.  He  openly  and  vehemently  denounced  Connecticut  for  the  laws  of  1742- 
43.  Through  seven  years  his  people  voluntarily  supported  him.  Rev.  Philemon  Rob- 
bins,  of  Branford,  was  also  expelled  and  supported  by  his  people.  Rev.  Mr.  Lea- 
venworth, of  Waterbury,  Humphrey,  of  Derby,  Todd,  of  Northbury,  were  sus- 
pended; lay  exhorters  were  imprisoned.  Samuel  Finley,  afterwards  President  of 
Princeton,  was  driven  from  the  colony  as  a  vagrant.  See  Robbins,  A  Plaine  Nar- 
rative, 1747;  Baldwin,  "Branford  Annals,"  New  Haven  Colony  Hist.  Soc.  Papers, 
IV.  319-29;  Tracy,  The  Great  Awakening,  p.  308;  Parker,  The  Congregational 
Separates  in  Connecticut;  Blake,  The  Separates  of  New  England,  pp.  48,  112; 
Trumbull,   History  of   Connecticut,   II.    141-46,   191. 

40  Quincy,  History  of  Harvard  University,  pp.  48-52,  61,  63-66.  In  1743  a  testi- 
mony against  itineracy  and  preaching  by  untrained  men,  etc.,  was  issued  by  cer- 
tain Mass.  ministers,  but  not  without  hot  debate,  and  shortly  thereafter  a  favorable 
report  was  signed  by  68  members  of  a  new  convention  and  by  56  others  whose 
names  were  sent  by  letter.  Similar  attestations  were  made  in  Conn.  See  Tracy, 
pp.  287-91,  294-302;  The  Testimony  and  Advice  of  an  Assembly  of  Pastors  of 
Churches   in   New   England,   pp.    6-15,    49-51.    See  also   Trumbull,    II.  198-205. 

60    Tyerman,   II.  137. 


62  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

pernicious  than  any  man  could  have  imagined  six  years  ago. 
.  .  .  Perhaps  there  is  not  now  a  single  town  in  this  province, 
and,  probably,  not  in  Connecticut,  in  which  there  are  not  num- 
bers of  people  whose  minds  are  under  strong  prejudices  against 
their  ministers;  such  prejudices  as  almost  cut  off  all  hope  of 
their  profiting  by  their  sacred  ministrations."51  The  "fruits  the 
times  had  tasted"  were  "children  teaching  their  parents  or  min- 
isters ;  low-bred,  illiterate  persons  settling  difficult  points  of 
divinity  better  than  the  most  learned  divines ;  a  learned  ministry 
despised;  seminaries  of  learning  spoken  against  as  injurious 
to  religion  .  .  .  churches  full  of  contentions."52  A  spirit  of 
revolt  against  constituted  authority  was  abroad  in  the  land. 

Persecution  could  not  stop  the  movement  toward  freedom 
and  greater  independence  of  thought  and  action.  In  all  prob- 
ability it  was  strengthened  by  the  very  effort  to  destroy  it.  The 
majority  of  the  "New  Light"  clergy  and  people  did  not  leave 
their  church  but  gradually  won  greater  tolerance  and  harmony; 
some  joined  the  Presbyterians ;  more  the  Baptists,  and  so  gained 
relief ;  but  some  formed  "Separate"  or  "Strict  Congregational" 
churches  of  their  own  in  spite  of  the  law.53  In  certain  churches 
where  the  pastor  and  people  were  "New  Light",  but  moderate, 
and  a  group  of  the  people  wished  greater  enthusiasm,  the  "New 
Lights"  became  as  averse  to  separation  as  ever  the  "Old  Lights" 
had  been  and  the  pastors  refused  to  ordain  the  unlearned  men 
whom  the  people  wished  as  pastors.  These  churches  then  made 
a  covenant  together  and  their  pastor  was  ordained  by  another 

61  Ibid.,  p.  135-36.  Not  always  was  it  due  to  the  people's  wishing  to  hear  White- 
field  and  the  pastor's  opposing;  sometimes  it  was  the  reverse.  See  T.  F.  Waters, 
Ipswich  in  the  Massachusetts  Bay  Colony,  II.  459;  Thos.  Smith,  Journal,  pp.  115-16 
and  note;  Sylvester  Judd,  History  of  Hadley,  p.  330;   Sprague,  I.  423-24. 

52  Quincy,  p.   61.   See  Whitefieid,   Works,'  IV.  85. 

63  In  1752  Massachusetts  passed  a  law  that  if  individual  or  church  wished  to 
escape  taxes  for  Congregational  church  by  becoming  Baptist  they  must  be  certi- 
fied to  be  Baptists  in  good  and  regular  standing.  See  Colonial  Laws,  p.  527;  Palfrey, 
IV.  78-100.  This  was  not  easy,  and  then  and  later  caused  much  trouble  and  in- 
justice. The  number  of  "Separate"  churches  is  hard  to  determine.  Tracy  says  there 
were  some  ten  or  twelve  in  Connecticut;  Sprague,  VI.  29,  some  thirty;  Bates  in  his 
List  of  Congregational  Ecclesiastical  Societies  established  in  Connecticut  before 
1818,  p.  4,  says  they  were  numerous,  for  the  most  part  without  legal  existence; 
Clarke,  in  his  Historical  Sketch  of  the  Congregational  Churches  in  Massachusetts, 
p.  169,  says  there  were  some  twenty  "Separate"  churches  founded  between  1740  and 
1750  in  Massachusetts,  but  that  most  became  Baptist.  There  were  a  few  in 
Rhode  Island  and  New  Hampshire,  as  is  shown  by  the  town  histories  and  town 
and  state  papers.  For  further  details,  see  Parker,  op.  cit.;  Stiles,  Itineraries,  pp.  265- 
67;  Learned,  Contributions  to  the  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Connecticut,  1861;  Cobb, 
Rise  of  Religious  Liberty  in  America;  Green,  Development  of  Religious  Liberty  in 
Connecticut. 


Controversy  before  1743  63 

"Separate"  but  was  often  refused  recognition  and  fellowship 
by  the  more  regular  churches.54  The  "New  Lights"  were 
strongest  in  Connecticut  in  the  eastern  section,  in  Fairfield  East, 
Windham,  and  New  London  counties,  though  after  its  form* 
ation  in  1751  Litchfield  County  also  was  largely  "New  Light". 
The  Associations  of  Windham  and  Fairfield  East  were  the 
strongest  and  here  too  was  the  center  of  the  Separates.55  Many, 
however,  became  "New  Lights"  who  opposed  Separation  but 
who  believed  the  laws  of  1742-43  violated  the  liberties  of  the 
subject. 

The  persecution  was  at  its  height  in  Connecticut  from  1742 
to  1750.  By  the  latter  date  the  laws  were  somewhat  modified 
and  the  Assembly  began  to  sanction  the  formation  of  "Separate" 
churches.  The  more  moderate  "New  Lights"  were  growing 
more  numerous  and  more  powerful.  By  1748  some  of  the  "New 
Light"  Justices  of  the  Peace  were  restored  to  office,  by  1775 
"New  Light"  representatives  were  again  elected  and  were  now 
allowed  to  take  their  seats,  the  ministers'  association  restored 
"New  Light"  clergy  to  fellowship,  by  1758  the  "New  Lights" 
had  won  control  in  Connecticut  and  in  western  Massachusetts.56 

54  E.   Stiles,  Itineraries,  pp.   233-34. 

55  Trumbull,  11.217;  Historical  sketches  of  Fairfield  East  Association;  Hundred 
and  Fiftieth  Anniversary  of  Fairfield  County  Consociation;  Prince,  Christian  His- 
tory, I.  157-95,  199-210.  The  leading  "New  Light"  ministers  in  Conn,  were  Jedediah 
Mills,  of  Ripton,  Nathaniel  Hunn,  of  Reading,  Hezekiah  Gold,  of  Stratford,  Samuel 
Cooke,  of  Stratfield,  Anthony  Stoddard,  of  Woodbury,  John  Graham,  of  Southbury, 
Jonathan  Todd,  of  East  Guilford,  Joseph  Bellamy,  of  Bethlem,  James  Lockwood,  of 
Wethersfield,  Jonathan  Parsons  and  Stephen  Johnson,  of  Lyme,  Solomon  Williams 
and  Eleazar  Wheelock,  of  Lebanon,  Benj.  Pomeroy,  of  Hebron,  Philemon  Robbins, 
of  Branford,  Ebenezer  White,  of  Danbury,  Daniel  Humphreys,  of  Derby,  Joseph 
Meacham,  of  Coventry,  and  many  others.  Nathaniel  Eells,  Samuel  Whittelsey,  of 
Wallingford,  Isaac  Stiles,  of  New  Haven,  William  Worthington,  of  Saybrook, 
Nathaniel  Chauncey,  of  Durham,  Elnathan  Whitman,  of  Hartford,  and  Samuel 
Hall,  of  New  Cheshire,  and  others  were  "Old  Lights".  Some  of  the  best  known 
"Separates"  were  Solomon  and  Elisha  Paine,  of  Canterbury,  Samuel  Bird,  of  New 
Haven,  Isaac  Foster,  of  Stafford,  Eben.  Frothiiigham,  of  Middletown,  John  Hovey, 
of  Mansfield,  Jedediah  Hide,  of  Norwich.  Some  of  the  churches  surviving  were 
those  in  Windham,  Lyme,  Wethersfield  (which  removed  to  Middletown),  Milford, 
Danbury,  Killingly.  See  Bates,  List  of  Congregational  Ecclesiastical  Societies  es- 
tablished in  Connecticut  before  1818,  and  for  names  of  "Separates",  Eccles.  Papers 
(C.  S.  L.). 

Among  the  best  known  "New  Light"  ministers  in  Mass.  were  Thos.  Foxcroft, 
Wm.  Cooper,  Joseph  Sewall,  Thos.  Prince,  Joshua  Gee,  of  Boston,  Samuel  Moody, 
of  York,  Thos.  Smith,  of  Falmouth,  Joseph  Emerson,  of  Maiden,  John  White, 
of  Gloucester,  Joseph  Adams,  of  Newington,  N.  H.,  Peter  Thacher,  of  Middle- 
borough,  Thaddeus  Maccarty,  of  Kingston,  and  many  others.  Benj.  Colman  was  one 
of  Whitefield's  best  friends  but  took  a  somewhat  neutral  stand.  Some  of  the 
ministers  became  estranged  later  because  of  separations,  etc.  Nathaniel  Appleton, 
Chas.   Chauncey,  Ed.  Wigglesworth,   Eben.   Gay,  and  others  opposed  him. 

56  J.  H.  Trumbull,  Sons  of  Liberty  in  Connecticut,  p.  305,  says  that  the  "New 
Lights"    had  a   majority   in    the   Assembly  when   Wolcott    became   governor    in    1750. 


64  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

But  this  did  not  bring  peace.  One  of  the  results  of  the  Great 
Awakening  was  a  doctrinal  controversy  which  had  had  its 
beginnings  before  1740  and  which  was  doubtless  in  part  the 
reflection  of  European  rationalism.  The  "New  Lights"  were 
for  the  most  part  strict  Calvinists  and  opposed  Arminianism, 
with  which  they  believed  their  opponents  tainted.  In  Connecti- 
cut the  "New  Lights",  as  they  gained  power,  tried  in  certain 
cases  to  force  their  beliefs  by  law.57  This  roused  violent  oppo- 
sition among  both  ministers  and  laymen  and  its  repercussion 
was  felt  in  other  colonies.  The  more  liberal  Arminians  now 
united  to  gain  the  liberty  which  earlier  they  had  denied  to 
others.58 

It  has  seemed  necessary  to  summarize  in  this  brief  fashion  the 
essential  facts  of  the  Great  Awakening  in  order  to  present 
clearly  its  bearing  upon  the  development  of  political  theory. 
The  controversies  arising  directly  or  indirectly  out  of  this  move- 
ment were  many.  Clergy  and  laymen  were  involved  and  many 
arguments  were  used  which  had  a  direct  bearing  upon  the  later 
theories  of  the  Revolution.  During  these  years  the  New  Eng- 
enders were  engaged  among  themselves  in  excited  disputes 
over  the  very  kind  of  things  they  later  disputed  with  England. 
The  definition  of  natural  and  constitutional  rights  became 
clearer  and  more  inclusive. 

See  also  Cobb,  p.  279;  Parker,  p.  161;  Tracy,  p.  308;  Trumbull,  History  of  Con- 
necticut, II.  191;  Hodges,  "Yale  Graduates  in  Western  Massachusetts",  New  Haven 
Colony  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  IV.  2S8-S9,  272,  279,  282ff.  Many  of  the  graduates  of  Yale 
and  some  from  Harvard  who  had  been  strongly  influenced  by  Whitefield  went  to  the 
western  frontier  in  Berkshire.  Yale  graduates  predominated  in  the  old  Hampshire 
Co.  Some  had  studied  theology  with  "New  Light"  ministers  such  as  Pomeroy  and 
Bellamy.   See  Reynolds,  Two  Centuries  of  Christian  Activity  at  Yale. 

67  See  next  chapter. 

68  Trumbull,  Songs  of  Liberty  in  1755,  pp.  305-06.  Benjamin  Gale,  son-in-law  of 
Rev.  Jared  Eliot,  both  of  whom  were  ardent  believers  in  religious  freedom,  Inger- 
soll,  Thos.  Darling,  perhaps  Col.  John  Hubbard,  friend  and  relative  of  Ezra  Stiles, 
and  others  are  said  by  Trumbull  to  have  formed  a  society  to  further  civil  and 
religious  liberty  and  to  have  been  called,  in  derision,  "sons  of  liberty".  In  1765 
these  men  believed  there  was  no  way  but  to  yield  to  Parliament,  unless  Parlia- 
ment itself  repealed  its  acts.  On  the  contrary,  the  Rev.  Stephen  Johnson,  of  Lyme, 
Wm.  Williams,  Trumbull,  of  Lebanon,  and  the  eastern  faction  in  general  were 
ardent  leaders  of  the  American  cause  {ibid.,  pp.  306-12).  In  1767  they  defeated 
Hubbard  for  the  Assembly.  See  also  Gipson,  Jared  Ingersoll. 


Chapter  VI 

POLITICAL  PHILOSOPHY  AND  ECCLESIASTICAL 
CONTROVERSY :  1743-1763 

The  years  from  1743  to  1763  were  prolific  in  sermons, 
pamphlets,  and  petitions  in  which  constitutional  rights,  civil  and 
religious  liberty,  the  right  to  resistance,  etc.,  were  more  clearly 
defined  and  more  positively  asserted  than  ever  before.  Laymen 
as  well  as  clergy,  poor  and  unlearned  as  well  as  those  of  higher 
estate,  expressed  their  conviction  in  no  uncertain  terms,  and 
again  the  Bible,  natural  law,  the  rights  of  Englishmen,  cove- 
nants, charters,  and  statutes  were  drawn  upon  for  arguments, 
To  the  conservative  the  law  and  the  constitution  must  be 
enforced  and  government  and  discipline  maintained.  God  com- 
manded it.1  To  the  liberals  the  restrictive  laws  violated  the 
rights  and  liberties  which  they  possessed  as  men,  Christians, 
and  Englishmen  and  were  therefore  unconstitutional  and  to  be 
disregarded.  The  phrase  "unalienable  right"  grew  more  com- 
mon and  the  references  to  Locke,  Sydney,  and  other  radical 
theorists  more  frequent.2 

One  of  the  most  interesting  of  the  pleas  for  religious  liberty 
was  a  pamphlet  issued  in  1744,  called  The  Essential  Rights 
and  Liberties  of  Protestants,  a  Seasonable  Plea  for  Liberty  of 
Conscience  and  the  Right  of  Private  Judgment  in  matters  of 
Religion,  without  any  control  from  Human  Authority.  This 
pamphlet,  signed  Philalethes,  is  attributed  by  Tracy  to  Elisha 
Williams,3  a  follower  of  Whitefield,  and  is  the  fullest  discussion 

1  For  illustrations  of  the  conservative  position  see  the  Convention  Sermons 
of  E.  Holyoke,  1741;  of  Appleton,  1743;  ot  C.  Chauncey,  1744;  of  Clark,  1745; 
the  Connecticut  Election  Sermons  of  I.  Stiles;  1742?  of  Wm.  Worthington,  1744; 
of  Whitman,  1745;  of  Woodbridge,  1752;  Extracts  from  Records  of  Convention  of. 
Ministers  in  New  Hampshire,  1747-1774,  from  More's  and  Farmer's  Collections, 
Topographical,  Historical,  and  Biographical,  pp.   264-65. 

2That  Locke  was  frequently  read  before  1742  seems  evident  from  the  following 
reference  in  a  sermon  of  Thos.  Foxcroft  in  Boston,  1740.  On  the  title  page,  quoted 
from  Dr.  Watt's  Humble  Attempt,  is  the  following:  "You  are  not  to  stand  up 
here  (in  the  Pulpit)  as  a  Professor  of  ancient  or  modern  philosophy,  nor  an  Usher 
in  the  school  of  Plato,  or  Seneca,  or  Mr.  Lock  ..." 

3  Tracy,  p.  308,  note;  Parsons,  in  New  Haven  Colony  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  VII. 
202-03.  Clark  ascribes  it  to  Thos.  Cushing;  Wm.  Cushing  in  his  Anonyms,  p.  223, 
ascribes  it  to  Rev.  Ebenezer  Williams  of  Pomfret.  The  copy  in  the  Kingsley  Col- 
lection, Yale  College  Library,  was  given  in  1774  by  John  Potwine,  of  Hartford,  to 
"Benj.  Pomeroy",  probably  Rev.  Benj.  Pomeroy,  of  Hebron,  the  famous  "New 
Light." 

[65] 


66  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

of  equality  and  liberty  since  the  time  of  John  Wise.  Like 
Wise's  pamphlets  it  was  called  forth  by  religious  and  ecclesi- 
astical difficulties,  and  like  his  Vindication,  it  deserves  a  some- 
what careful  study. 

The  author  defines  natural  liberty  as  freedom  from  any 
superior  earthly  power,  as  subjection  only  to  the  law  of  nature, 
which  he  declares  to  be  the  law  of  God.  He  then  gives  the 
clearest  and  fullest  explanation  of  the  so-called  natural  right  to 
property  to  be  found  among  any  of  the  clerical  writings  of  the 
eighteenth  century: 

"As  Reason  tells  us,  all  are  born  thus  naturally  equal,  i.e. 
with  an  equal  Right  to  their  Persons ;  so  also  with  an  equal 
Right  to  their  Preservation ;  and  therefore  to  such  Things  as 
Nature  affords  for  their  Subsistence.  .  .  .  And  altho'  no  one 
has  originally  a  private  Dominion  exclusive  of  the  rest  of  Man- 
kind in  the  Earth  or  its  Products,  as  they  are  consider'd  in  this 
their  natural  State;  Yet  since  God  has  given  these  Things  for 
the  Use  of  Men  and  given  them  Reason  also  to  make  use  thereof 
to  the  best  Advantage  of  Life;  there  must  be  of  Necessity  a 
Means  to  appropriate  them  some  Way  or  other,  before  they  can 
be  of  any  Use  to  any  Particular  Person.  And  every  Man  hav- 
ing a  Property  in  his  own  Person,  the  Labour  of  his  Body  and 
the  Work  of  his  Hands  are  properly  his  own,  to  which  no  one 
has  Right  but  himself ;  it  will  therefore  follow  that  when  he 
removes  any  Thing  out  of  the  State  that  Nature  has  provided 
and  left  it  in,  he  has  mixed  his  Labour  with  it  and  joined  some- 
thing to  it  that  is  his  own,  and  thereby  makes  it  his  Property. 
.  .  .  Thus  every  Man  having  a  natural  Right  to  (or  being 
Proprietor  of)  his  own  Person  and  his  own  Actions  and  Labour, 
which  we  call  Property;  it  certainly  follows,  that  no  Man  can 
have  a  Right  to  the  Person  or  Property  of  another :  And  if 
every  Man  has  a  Right  to  his  Person  and  Property ;  he  has  also 
a  Right  to  defend  them,  and  a  Right  to  all  the  necessary  Means 
of  Defence,  and  so  has  a  Right  of  punishing  all  Insults  upon 
his  Person  and  Property."4 

There  follows  a  summary  of  Locke's  theories  concerning  the 
origin  and  purpose  of  society  and  government  and  the  conse- 
quent power  of  the  people.5  The  author  believed  that  one  could 

*  E.    Williams,   A    Seasonable  Plea,   pp.    2-3. 

5  Ibid.,  pp.  3-6.  He  says  he  has  given  "a  short  sketch  of  what  the  celebrated 
Mr.   Locke  in  his  Treatice  of   Government  has  largely  demonstrated;   and  in   which 


Controversy:  1743-1763  67 

tell  what  natural  rights  had  been  given  up  by  considering  the 
ends  for  which  they  had  been  yielded.6  Evidently  there  had  been 
certain  criticism  of  those  who  read  Locke,  for  he  rather  defiantly 
declares  that  man  "in  a  State  of  Nature  .  .  .  had  a  right  to  read 
Milton  or  Locke  for  their  Instruction  or  Amusement  and  why 
do  they  not  retain  this  Liberty  under  a  Government  that  is 
instituted  for  the  Preservation  of  their  Persons  and  Properties, 
is  inconceivable."7  With  equal  clarity  and  decision  he  asserts 
that  there  is  "no  binding  Force  in  a  Law  where  a  rightful 
Authority  to  make  the  same  is  wanting."8  He  then  turns  to  the 
natural  and  unalienable  right  of  men  to  judge  for  themselves 
in  matters  of  religion,  which  they  also  retain  in  a  civil  state.9 
This  could  not  be  given  up  even  if  men  were  so  weak  as  to  offer 
it,  for  the  rights  of  conscience  are  "sacred,  equal  in  all,  and 
strictly  speaking  unalienable."10  No  power  over  religious  mat- 
ters was  or  could  be  vested  in  the  civil  Magistrate  by  the  people 
"by  any  original  Compact  which  is  truly  supposed  the  Found- 
ation of  all  civil  Government."11  Men  must  keep  in  mind  that 
there  are  two  kinds  of  powers,  those  that  are  and  those  that  are 
not.  "For  instance ;  the  Powers  that  be  in  Great  Britain  are  the 
Government  therein  according  to  its  own  Constitution : — If  then 
the  higher  Powers  for  the  Administration  rule  not  according 
to  that  Constitution,  or  if  any  King  thereof  shall  rule  so,  as  to 
change  the  Government  from  legal  to  arbitrary ;  the  Power  from 
God  fails  them,  it  is  then  a  Power  not  in  the  text,  and  so  no 
Subjection  due  to  it  from  the  Text  .  .  .  [the  powers  that  be 
are  of  God]   .  .  .  their  Power  is  a  limited  one :  and  therefore 

it  is  justly  to  be  presumed  all  are  agreed  who  understand  the  natural  Rights  of 
Mankind." 

•  "This  I  rest  on  as  certain,  that  no  more  natural  Liberty  or  Power  is  given  up 
than  is  necessary  for  the  Preservation  of  Person  and  Property."  One  liberty  that 
all  members  of  a  free  state  and  especially  Englishmen  hold  dear  is  the  right  to 
speak  their  sentiments  openly  concerning  such  matters  as  affect  the  good  of  the 
whole   (p.  7). 

7  Ibid.,  p.   7. 

8  Ibid. 

B  He  argues  that  in  religious  matters  every  group  has  the  right  of  withdrawal; 
the  majority  can  elect,  but  the  minority  can  withdraw.  "It  is  not  here,  as  in  the 
civil  Societies  where  the  Right  of  each  Individual  is  subjected  to  the  Body,  or 
so  transferred  to  the  Society  as  that  the  Act  of  the  Majority  is  legally  to  be  con- 
sidered as  the  Act  of  the  Whole,  and  binding  to  each  Individual"  (pp.  48-49). 
Every  Christian  is  bound  to  search  the  Scriptures  and  so  "has  an  unalienable 
Right  to  judge  of  the  Sense  and  Meaning  of  it,  and  to  follow  his  Judgment  wherever 
it  leads  him;  even  an  equal  Right  with  any  Rulers  be  they  Civil  or  Ecclesias- 
tical"   (p.    8). 

10  Ibid. 

11  Ibid.,   p.    63 


68  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

the  Obedience  due  is  a  limited  Obedience.  ...  If  civil  Rulers 
should  take  it  into  their  Heads  to  make  a  Law,  that  no  Man 
shall  have  Luther's  Table-Talk  in  his  House,  that  every  Man 
shall  turn  round  upon  his  right  Heel  at  twelve  of  the  Clock 
every  Day,  (Sundays  excepted)  or  any  such  like  wise  Law 
(Thousands  of  which  might  be  invented  by  a  wise  Tyrant,)  By 
this  Rule  these  Laws  are  to  be  strictly  obeyed,  a  higher  Law 
to  the  contrary  not  being  found.  And  yet  I  think  it  may  be  pre- 
sumed, a  free-born  People  can  never  become  so  servile  as  to 
regard  them,  while  they  have  Eyes  to  see  that  such  Rulers  have 
gone  out  of  the  Line  of  their  Power,  .  .  .  There  is  no  Reason 
they  should  be  Fools  because  their  Rulers  are  so.  .  .  ,"12 

As  to  what  people  must  do  to  free  themselves  from  tyranny, 
the  author  refers  again  to  Locke.  Here  is  a  minister  in  1744 
using  the  very  arguments  of  1775,  declaring  that  subjects  and 
rulers  are  bound  by  the  constitution  and  that  a  law  violating 
natural  and  constitutional  rights  is  no  law  and  requires  no 
obedience.  Here  is  clear  evidence  of  the  transmission  through 
the  clergy  of  the  theories  of  Locke.  The  importance  of  this  and 
like  pamphlets  is  this :  they  show  how  the  thinking  and  the 
theory  that  came  out  in  the  Revolutionary  period  were  uttered 
not  alone  in  theoretical  election  sermons  but  in  practical  dis- 
putes and  controversies  over  church  and  individual  rights  long 
before  the  trouble  with  England  arose. 

There  was  an  increasing  number  of  sermons  and  pamphlets 
breathing  the  spirit  of  liberty  and  constitutional  rights.13  Nath- 
aniel Hunn,  a  "New  Light",  preached  the  Connecticut  Election 

11  Ibid.,  pp.  26-27.   For  fuller  quotation,  see  Appendix. 

13  "I  have  heard  it  cast  as  a  Reproach  upon  the  Clergy,  that  they  have  been  the 
foremost  in  propagating  the  Principles  of  Sedition,  and  Disobedience  to  Authority. 
I  am  persuaded  the  Charge  is  unjust:  And  hope,  the  Instances  are  but  few,  of 
those  that  have  given  Occasion  for  such  a  Charge  ...  I  suppose  some  ministers 
under  the  power  of  enthusiasm  representing  the  Leaders  &  Rulers  of  this  Peo- 
ple, as  unconverted  &  Opposers  of  the  Work  of  God,  and  usurping  an  Authority 
that  did  not  belong  to  them,  was  the  Occasion  of  this  Charge,  And  I  make  no 
doubt  but  it  had  an  unhappy  Influence  upon  the  People,  and  encouraged  many 
to  despise  Government,  and  to  speak  Evil  of  Dignities.  But  yet  it  is  unfair  to 
Object  this  to  the  Clergy  in  general"  (J.  Todd,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1749, 
p.  74;  and  note  pp.  74-75). 

Some  of  the  Massachusetts  election  sermons  as  well  as  some  of  those  of  Con- 
necticut during  this  period  show  a  recognition  of  arbitrary  dealings  by  the  colonial 
governments.  John  Cotton,  of  Newton,  Mass.,  in  17S3  says  that  the  "Cry  of  Un- 
righteousness, Oppression  and  Extortion"  is  heard  in  the  land,  and  in  1762 
Abraham  Williams  speaks  of  "all  men  being  naturally  equal"  and  of  "Attempts 
of  domestic  Traitors,  arbitrary  bigott'ed  Tyrants.'  "  Swift,  "Massachusetts  Election 
Sermons,"  Mass.   Col.  Soc.  Pub.   I.   419,  421. 


Controversy:  1743-1763  69 

Sermon  in  1747  on  the  subject,  "The  Welfare  of  a  Government 
considered",  in  which  he  extolled  liberty,  defining  it  as  a  free 
and  secure  enjoyment  of  a  people's  just  rights,  natural,  civil, 
and  religious,  free  on  the  one  hand  from  oppression  and  tyranny 
and  on  the  other  from  popular  tumults  and  disorders,  free  from 
heavy  and  unreasonable  taxes,  from  having  the  fruits  of  their 
labor  snatched  untimely  from  their  hands,  their  religious 
immunities  at  the  mercy  of  tyrants.14  Moses  Dickinson,  of 
Nor  walk,  in  1755  defended  the  ecclesiastical  constitution  of 
Connecticut  as  a  whole  and  asserted  that  law  must  be  upheld 
slse  there  would  be  no  civil  liberty,  yet  declared  that  persecu- 
tion for  religion  was  a  violation  of  the  law  of  nature  and  the 
law  of  Christ.15  William  Rand,  of  Kingston,  in  his  Massachu- 
setts Convention  Sermon  of  1757,  asserted  the  right  of  private 
judgment,  saying  that  Christ  has  not  made  any  particular  per- 
son or  persons  infallible  interpreters  of  the  Bible;  therefore 
every  individual  must  interpret  for  himself  what  he  finds  in  the 
sacred  Scripture.16  The  same  ideas  may  be  found  in  the  Con- 
vention Sermon  of  William  Balch  in  1760.  Religious  sincerity 
includes,  he  said,  a  "universal  Love  of  Truth,  and  a  free  impar- 
tial entire  Submission  to  its  Empire  ...  as  the  Force  of  Evi- 
dence has  obliged  us  to  believe,  so  much  we  speak."17  And 
again  in  1760  Joseph  Fish  in  his  Connecticut  Election  Sermon 
said :  "Every  Man  has  a  natural,  unalienable  Right  to  think  and 
see  for  himself."18 

Perhaps  the  two  most  famous  exponents  of  religious  liberty 
in  New  England  during  these  years  whose  works  were  most 
widely  circulated  in  the  colonies  and  in  England  were  Jonathan 
Mayhew,  of  Massachusetts,  and  Ezra  Stiles,  of  Rhode  Island. 
As  early  as  1748  Mayhew  taught  the  separation  of  church  and 
state  and  freedom  of  judgment  in  religious  matters.  This  right 
to  judge  and  act  for  oneself,  he  said,  is  "absolutely  unalienable 

"  Hunn,  pp.   14-25.  The  whole  sermon  is  on  this  subject. 

16  M.  Dickinson,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  17S5,  pp.  7,  11-12,  24,  33,  etc., 
argues  in   favor  of  war   of  resistance   in   defence  of   lives,   liberties,   and  properties. 

1GWm.    Rand,    Convention    Sermon,    1757,    pp.    14-23. 

17  Wm.  Balch,  Convention  Sermon,  1760,  pp.  14-16.  The  Massachusetts  sermons 
of  the  period  are  as  a  whole  more  insistent  on  liberty  than  those  of  Connecticut. 
See  Stevens,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1761,  Thos.  Barnard,  Massachusetts 
Election  Sermon,  1763,  and  many  others.  The  French  and  Indian  War  helped  to 
interest  clergy  and  people  in  freedom  and  constitutional  government.  See  Chap.  VII. 

18  J.   Fish,   Connecticut  Election   Sermon,   1760,   pp.   13-14,  45-46. 


70  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

in  its  own  nature."19  Some  of  Mayhew's  sermons  and  pam- 
phlets were  caused  by  the  fear  of  an  American  Episcopate  which 
seems  to  have  been  in  the  minds  of  many  Congregationalist 
and  Presbyterian  ministers  throughout  the  colonies  and  to  have 
given  rise  to  heated  arguments.  This  grew  more  serious  after 
1763  and  doubtless  was  one  reason  for  some  of  the  earlier  dis- 
cussions of  government  and  religious  liberty.  In  the  confusion 
of  the  Great  Awakening  the  Episcopal  church  in  New  England 
had  won  new  members,  and  to  the  missionaries  of  the  Society 
for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  it  seemed  a  propitious  time 
to  strengthen  their  hold.20  Certainly  Mayhew's  sermon  of  1750, 
referred  to  in  an  earlier  chapter,  was  caused  by  his  dislike  and 
dread  of  the  Anglican  Church  and  the  doctrines  upon  which  he 
believed  it  to  be  founded.  Probably,  also,  his  own  experience  in 
finding  certain  of  his  fellow-ministers  cold  to  him  because  of 
his  liberal  doctrines  helped  to  make  him  so  outspoken  a  friend 
of  liberty. 

Ezra  Stiles'  Discourse  on  Christian  Union,  published  in  1760, 
had  also  wide  influence.  Stiles  was  in  correspondence  with  men 
in  all  the  colonies  and  in  England  and  travelled  widely  in  New 
England.  Of  this  sermon  he  said  that  Chauncey  had  it  printed 
for  him  in  Boston  in  1761  and  sent  extra  copies  to  Connecticut, 
believing  it  especially  adapted  to  serve  that  colony.  In  1766  his 
printer  told  him  that  seven  to  eight  hundred  copies  had  been 
sold,  that  more  had  been  made  out  of  it  than  was  ever  made  by 
any  one  sermon  in  Boston,  and  that  it  might  be  readily  printed 
again.21  As  did  Mayhew  and  others,  so  Stiles  wrote  in  behalf 
of  the  unalienable  right  to  private  judgment  and  liberty,  espe- 
cially in  religion,  and  also  in  behalf  of  the  local  rights  and 
privileges  of  churches. 

Such  were  the  arguments  used  by  the  regularly  ordained  min- 
isters in  their  sermons  in  behalf  of  religious  freedom.  But  it  is 

19  Mayhew,  Sermons,  1748,  p.  88.  We  must  use  reason  only,  weigh  evidence,  and 
cheerfully  accept  truth,  wherever  found.  This  was  the  method  of  Jesus  and  the 
Apostles  (pp.  38-79) ;  and  we  must  give  the  same  liberty  to  others.  "Nothing  is 
more  incongruous  than  for  an  advocate  of  liberty  to  tyrannize  over  his  neighbors" 
(p.  89).  In  his  Election  Sermon  of  1754  he  questions  whether  there  are  not  some 
laws  in  force  not  reconcilable  with  the  religious  liberty  which  they  profess  and 
which  is  guaranteed  by  the  Royal  Charter,  and  whether  these  laws  are  sufficiently 
abhorrent  of  the  persecuting  spirit  found   in   Connecticut    (p.   28). 

20  A.  L.  Cross,  The  Anglican  Episcopate  and  the  American  Colonies  (a  full 
treatment  of  the  subject)  ;  Pascoe,  Two  Hundred   Years  of  the  S.  P.  G.,  p.  45. 

21  Ezra   Stiles,   Itineraries,   pp.    440-41 ;   440,   note. 


Controversy:  1743-1763  71 

not  only  here  that  such  discussions  can  be  found.  In  every 
ecclesiastical  controversy  which  brought  out  letters  and  pam- 
phlets one  runs  across  them.  When  in  1753  President  Clap,  fear- 
ing that  the  students  might  imbibe  heretical  doctrine,  organized 
at  Yale  a  separate  church,  he  alienated  the  "Old  Lights."22 
And  when  shortly  thereafter  he  required  a  public  acceptance  of 
the  Saybrook  creed  and  confession  from  the  fellows  and  pro- 
fessors and  published  in  1755  a  pamphlet  urging  a  careful 
examination  of  the  candidates  to  the  ministry  by  the  Association 
to  ensure  their  orthodox  Calvinism,  he  roused  a  storm  of  pro- 
test.23 He  answered  the  assertion  of  religious  freedom  by  say- 
ing that  although  men  had  a  right  to  judge  for  themselves,  they 
had  not  the  right  to  judge  wrongly.  He  declared  that  the  Say- 
brook  Confession  was  established  by  law  and  as  such  must  be 
enforced.  Laymen  took  up  the  challenge,  lamenting  the  growing 
lust  for  power  among  the  clergy  and  their  constant  ambition  to 
interest  themselves  in  affairs  of  state.24  One  lay  pamphleteer 
said  that  the  people  would  not  accept  standards  of  faith  set 
up  by  Council  or  Ministers.  In  bold  and  vivid  phrase  he  asserted 
the  freedom  of  Americans.  "These  things  will  never  go  down 
in  a  free  State,  where  People  are  bred  in,  and  breathe  a  free 
Air,  and  are  formed  upon  Principles  of  Liberty;  they  might 
Answer  in  a  Popish  Country,  or  in  Turkey,  where  the  common 
People  are  sunk  and  degraded  almost  to  the  State  of  Brutes, 
by  Poverty,  Chains  and  absolute  Tyranny,  and  have  no  more 
Sense  of  Liberty  and  Property,  than  so  many  Jack-Asses :  But 
in  a  free  State  they  will  be  eternally  ridiculed  and  abhorred. 
.  .  .  'Tis  too  late  in  the  Day  for  these  Things,  these  Gentlemen 
should  have  lived  12  or  13  Hundred  Years  ago,  or  they  should 
have  been  born  in  a  Popish  Country,  then  they  would  have  had 

22  Thos.  Dexter,  "Thomas  Clap  and  his  Writings",  New  Haven  Colony  Hist.  Soc. 
Papers,  V.  257,  260.  He  was  never  liked  by  the  "New  Lights",  but  because  of  his 
interest  in  politics  was  dubbed  a  "political  New  Light".  Stephen  White,  Connecticut 
Election  Sermon,  1763,  p.  32,  speaks  of  general  dissatisfaction  concerning  the  college. 

23  Thos.  Clap,  A  Brief  History  and  Vindication  of  the  Doctrines  .  .  ,  1755,  p.  25, 
reprinted  in  1757.  See  Win.  Hart,  A  Letter  to  a  Friend  wherein  some  free 
Thoughts  are  offered,  pp.  14-17  (Hart  believed  that  the  move  was  political) ;  Noah 
Hobart,  A  Congratulatory  Letter  From  a  Gentleman  in  the  West,  1755  (satirical); 
Clap,  The  Ansiver  of  the  Friend  in  the  West,  To  a  Letter  From  a  Gentleman  in 
the   East,    1755. 

2i  Catholicus,  A  Letter  to  A  Clergyman  in  the  Colony  of  Connecticut  from  his 
Friend,  1757;  Some  Remarks  on  Mr.  President  Clap's  History,  pp.  3-4,  43,  59. 
The  sanction  of  Fathers  and  Councils  in  matters  of  the  Faith  "is  as  impertinent, 
as  a  Man's  pretending  to  give  a  Sanction  to  the  Constitutions  of  the  Great  God." 


72  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

something  to  do :  But  as  to  Us  in  this  Country,  we  are  Free- 
born, and  have  the  keenest  Sense  of  Liberty,  and  han't  the  least 
Notion  of  pampering  and  making  a  Few  great,  at  the  Expense 
of  our  own  Liberty  and  Property."25 

About  the  same  time  an  affair  occurred  which  again  split  the 
clergy  of  Connecticut  into  opposing  parties  and  struck  further 
blows  at  the  ecclesiastical  constitution.  It  brought  out  unusually 
interesting  and  significant  discussions  of  constitutional  rights 
from  minister  and  layman.  A  Mr.  Dana  was  desired  by  the 
majority  of  the  church  at  Wallingford  as  their  pastor  and  was 
ordained  by  a  group  of  neighboring  ministers  without  the  appro- 
bation of  the  Consociation  of  New  Haven,  to  which  the  Church 
belonged.  Both  the  New  Haven  and  the  Hartford  Consociations 
disapproved  of  Dana's  doctrines.  The  New  Haven  Consociation 
thereupon  declared  the  ordination  illegal  and  void.  The  affair 
aroused  very  general  concern  and  interest  which  lasted  ovei 
several  years  and  extended  into  other  colonies.  Some  thought  it 
so  serious  as  to  affect  the  government  and  even  the  state.  Some 
believed  it  was  being  used  by  those  who  would  attack  both. 
People  began  to  inquire  into  the  nature  of  ecclesiastical  councils 
and  the  whole  ecclesiastical  constitution  was  felt  to  be  at  stake.26 

The  issues  were  the  right  of  a  church  to  choose  and  ordain  its 
pastor  without  yielding  to  the  authority  of  the  Consociation,  the 
rights  of  the  majority  in  a  church  election,  and  the  relation  of 
the  Consociations  to  the  Ecclesiastical  Constitution;  here  was 
a  question  of  constitutionality.  Edward  Eells,  in  support  of  the 
action  of  the  Consociation,  said :  "I  suppose  it  is  a  settled  rule, 
and  common  law,  that  when  anything  is  done  contrary  to  law, 
or  constitution,  that  such  a  doing  is  either  absolutely  void,  or 
voidable ;  if  it  be  so  absolutely  void,  then  it  requires  no  court  to 
judge  it  so ;  if  only  voidable,  then  it  is  voided,  or  nullified, 
by  the  sentence  of  a  proper  court.  Now,  Mr.  Dana's  ordination, 
.  .  .  being  carried  on  contrary  to  constitution,  was  voidable 
and  was  justly  declared  void,  by  the  united  council ;  and  so  none, 
adhering  to  the  constitution,  can  be  holden  to  be  subject  to  him 
as  their  pastor.  .  .  ,"27  Hobart  said  that  those  upholding  Wal- 

25  Some  Remarks,  pp.    109-10. 

28  N.  Hobart,  The  Principles  of  Congregational  Churches,  p.  3 ;  Layman,  A  letter 
to  a  Friend. 

27  Eells,  Some  Serious  Remarks,  p.   50.  The  most  prominent  writers  on  the  side  * 
of  the  Consociation  were   Rev.   Noah   Hobart,  of   Fairfield,   Rev.    Edward   Eells,   of 
Middletown,    Rev.    Moses    Dickinson,    of    Norwalk.    Hobart,    Dickinson    and    several 


Controversy:  1743-1763  73 

lingford  were  making  "tragical  outcries  of  tyranny  and  oppres- 
sion",28 but  that  nothing  had  been  done  but  to  uphold  the  con- 
stitution. The  opposition,  however,  claimed  that  the  authority  of 
the  Consociation  was  derived  wholly  from  the  constitution  and 
was  absolutely  limited  by  it,  for  they  owed  their  very  being  to 
it.  They  had,  therefore,  no  right  or  authority  to  intermeddle 
in  any  matters  or  cases  that  were  not  put  into  their  hands  by 
the  constitution  itself.  Nor  could  they  extend  their  power  or 
authority  beyond  the  limits  of  the  consociated  churches  nor 
claim  a  right  of  jurisdiction  over  any  person  who  was  not  a 
member  of  that  body  or  in  any  case  that  was  not  made  cog- 
nizable by  them  by  the  constitution  itself.29  This  seems  to  have 
been  an  early  case  of  strict  interpretation. 

The  general  offence  at  the  action  of  the  Consociation  seems 
not  to  have  been  because  of  the  doctrines  involved  but  because 
unconstitutional  and  arbitrary  measures  were  taken  to  uphold 
them  and  because  it  was  feared  that  this  was  but  a  step  to 
extend  the  Consociation's  power  over  all  the  churches.  Hart  in 
opposing  the  Consociation  thought  of  himself  only  as  defending 
the  cause  of  liberty  and  the  constitution.  He  defined  tyranny  as 
"the  exercise  of  a  power  or  government  over  another,  under 
pretence  of  authority,  but  really  without  right  and  warrant  of 
law.  The  same  action  may  be  either  authoritative  or  tyrannical, 
according  as  it  is  warranted  by  law  and  right,  or  not.  If  a  mag- 
istrate, vested  with  just  authority  therefor,  imprisons  my  body 

others  on  this  side  had  been  among  those  protesting  against  the  laws  of  1742  and 
1743  as  taking  away  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  ministers.  Among  those  op- 
posing the  Consociation  were  Rev.  Wm.  Hart,  of  Saybrook,  Rev.  Jonathan  Todd, 
of   East   Guilford,   an   unknown   layman,   and   Mr.    R.    Wolcott. 

28  Hobart,  The  Principles  of  Congregational  Churches,  pp.  4,  14.  See  the  whole 
pamphlet;  also,  An  Attempt  to  illustrate  .  .  .  ,  pp.  25-26,  38-40,  43-44.  "The  essential 
Laws  or  fundamental  Principles  of  Society  are  ratified  and  confirmed  by  the  Gos- 
pel. Christ  came  not  to  destroy  the  Law  of  Nature  ...  on  the  contrary,  he  con- 
firmed these  relations."  Hobart  believed  that  oiie  of  the  duties  following  from 
these  relations  and  strongly  supported  by  Christ  and  the  Apostles  was  submission 
to  magistrates.  He  declared  it  absurd  to  argue  that  the  Saybrook  Platform  as 
interpreted  by  his  side  was  inconsistent  with  Christian  liberty.  "The  great  Dif- 
ficulty in  civil  and  ecclesiastical  Policy,  is  to  fix  the  Ballance  between  Authority 
and  Liberty.  Authority  is  apt  to  degenerate  into  Tyranny  and  Liberty  into  Li- 
centiousness and  confusion  .  .  .  The  constitution  of  the  consociated  churches  in 
Connecticut  is  in  my  opinion  the  true  medium  between  these  Extreams."  This 
was  published  in  1765  while  the  controversy  was  still  raging.  He  hoped  to  show 
that  the  constitution  agreed  with  the  Scriptures,  with  itself,  the  rights  of  churches 
and  the  liberties  of  men  and  Christians   (p.   12). 

29  Hart,  Remarks  on  a  late  Pamphlet,  pp.  17-18,  47,  52,  defends  the  act  of  ordina- 
tion as  strictly  constitutional,  defines  tyranny,  and  compares  civil  and  religious 
tyranny. 


74 The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

or  takes  away  my  goods,  in  a  legal  way,  this  is  a  just  act  of 
power.  But  if  this  same  magistrate,  without  authority,  without, 
or  contrary  to  law,  does  the  same  action,  under  pretense  of 
authority,  his  conduct  is  tyrannical."30 

It  was  on  this  side  of  the  case  that  the  laymen  argued.  They 
discussed  again  natural  and  unalienable  rights,  and  voiced  the 
resentment  of  many  that  the  ministers  of  late  seemed  deter- 
mined to  increase  their  power.31  The  whole  case,  so  they  thought, 
would  tend  to  make  men  sick  of  the  ecclesiastical  constitution.32 

The  significance  of  this  case  for  the  present  study  is  in  the 
close  arguments  on  constitutionality  which  it  produced.  Since 
the  controversy  excited  much  interest,  these  arguments  must 
have  been  carefully  pondered  by  many  in  the  New  England 
colonies.  It  served,  by  applying  them  to  a  definite  case  of  wide 
interest,  to  vivify  and  define  arguments  which  were  to  many, 
perhaps,  general  principles  rather  vaguely  appreciated. 

The  significance  of  religious  and  ecclesiastical  controversy  in 
developing  and  spreading  abroad  political  theory  might  be  illus- 
trated by  reference  to  the  present  situation  in  America.  The 
recent  injection  of  religious  questions  into  political  campaigns 
and  the  attempt  to  limit  by  legislative  action  freedom  of  thought 
and  teaching  in  matters  concerning  the  Bible  and  religion  have 
caused  a  wide  interest  in  the  political  theories  which  underlie 
the  separation  of  church  and  state  and  the  relative  rights  and 
powers  of  the  state  and  the  individual.  One  even  hears  discus- 
sions concerning  the  natural  rights  of  men.  In  the  eighteenth 
century,  when  men's  attention  was  less  scattered  by  a  multi- 

30  Ibid.,  pp.  55-56.  See  also  J.  Todd,  A  Faithful  Narrative,  pp.  59,  78,  note,  80-81. 
Another  minister  supporting  Wallingford  quoted  Hoadly  and  the  liberty  of  English 
subjects.  Todd  maintained  the  right  of  the  majority  to  decide  an  election,  p.  53, 
See  also  A  Reply  to  the  Reverend  Mr.  Eells;  Hart,  An  Answer  to  the  Rev'd  Mr. 
Hobart's  Principles;  An  Answer  to  a  Letter  From  an  Aged  Layman  by  an  Aged 
Minister. 

31  Aged  Layman  of  Connecticut,  A  Letter  to  the  Clergy  of  the  Colony  of  Con- 
necticut,  1760. 

32  Layman,  Letter  to  a  Friend,  1760,  pp.  14-16.  Cf.  also  R.  Wolcott,  Letter  to 
Reverend  Mr.  Hobart,  1761,  pp.  17-18.  This  letter,  which  advocated  the  rights 
of  the  laity,  the  Cambridge  platform,  and  the  right  of  the  majority  in  both  civil 
and  religious  affairs,  is  one  of  the  most  significant  of  their  pamphlets.  A  body 
politic,  he  said,  might  oppress  a  single  man  or  many  men,  considering  the  op- 
pressed as  individuals,  but  a  major  part  in  such  a  body  could  not  oppress  a  minor 
part  by  over-ruling  them  by  their  votes.  The  main  issue  was  really  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  Saybrook  Platform  (pp.  19-20).  He  insisted  that  the  Congregational 
Church  had  from  the  beginning  stood  for  the  right  of  private  judgment  by  the 
laity  and  that  it  was  the  greatest  privilege  man  can  enjoy  and  so  to  be  cherished 
(pp.  22-23). 


Controversy:  1743-1763  75 

plicity  of  interests,  and  their  relation  to  the  church  was  far 
closer  than  to-day,  the  influence  of  such  discussions  and  con- 
flicts was  undoubtedly  greater.  As  a  result,  the  more  or  less 
abstract  theories  of  the  election  and  other  political  sermons 
became  concrete  and  practical. 

Thus  far  the  arguments  considered  have  been  those  of  the 
regularly  ordained  ministers  and  a  few  laymen  in  behalf  of  con- 
stitutional government  and  civil  and  religious  freedom.  Did 
they  pass  over  the  heads  of  the  great  mass  of  people  or  did  they 
make  a  permanent  impression  and  become  a  part  of  their  mental 
possessions  ?  The  extent  of  their  influence  is  hard  to  determine, 
but  that  some  of  these  same  arguments  were  used  upon  occasion 
by  humble  men  is  certain.  It  seems  fair  to  suppose  that  at  least 
one  source  of  their  convictions  was  the  constantly  reiterated 
arguments  of  the  ministers.  The  numerous  petitions,  confes- 
sions of  faith,  and  other  documents  presented  to  the  assemblies 
by  the  "Separates"  during  these  trying  years  show  clearly  that 
many  of  their  members  were  of  the  poorer  classes.  The  laws  of 
Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire,  and  Connecticut,  all  of  which 
required  citizens  to  pay  taxes  to  a  recognized  church  and  which 
in  Connecticut  especially  made  the  establishment  of  a  "Separate" 
Congregational  church  almost  impossible,  fell  upon  these  men 
and  women  with  special  severity.  Some  no  doubt  fought  the 
law  simply  to  escape  taxation,  but  some  fought  for  principles 
for  which  they  were  willing  to  suffer,  and  they  fought  well. 

Again  it  is  only  by  quotations  that  one  can  get  the  flavor  of 
the  olden  days  and  the  exact  meaning  and  force  of  the  familiar 
phrases.  One  of  the  leaders  of  the  common  people  in  Connecti- 
cut was  Solomon  Paine,  of  Canterbury,  who  published  in  1752 
a  pamphlet  on  the  "Separates".33  "The  Word  of  the  Lord  was 
like  a  Fire  shut  up  in  my  Bones,  and  the  Cry  of  the  poor  Inno- 
cents, who  are  some  of  them  shut  up  in  Prisons,  and  others  with 
their  little  Children  crying  for  Milk,  and  could  get  none,  for 
the  Collector  had  taken  their  Cow  for  the  Minister;  and  the 
very  grey-headed  stript  of  their  necessary  Houshold-stuff ;  And 

33  A  Short  View  of  the  Difference  between  the  Churches  of  Christ,  and  the  estab- 
lished Churches,  1752.  Paine  speaks  of  "New  Lights"  who  first  encouraged  them 
and  then  joined  with  others  to  make  up  the  differences  between  the  "New  Lights'' 
and  the  standing  churches  (pp.  32-33).  See  The  Result  of  a  Council  of  The  Con- 
sociated  Churches  of  the  County  of  Windham,  1747;  Many  "New  Light"'  clergy 
refused  to  recognize  the  "Separate"  Churches,  declaring  they  had  set  up  absolute 
independency    (pp.    16-17). 


76  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

poor  weakly  Women,  their's  taken  away,  even  to  their  Warm- 
ing-Pan. Men's  Oxen  taken  out  of  their  Teams ;  Horses  stript 
of  their  Tackling;  All  the  Meat  taken  away  from  some,  just 
at  the  setting-in  of  Winter,  when  the  poor  Men  had  nothing  in 
the  List,  but  their  Head  and  one  Creature :  And  when  they  have 
nothing  but  a  Family  of  small  Children,  to  prison  with  the 
Head  of  the  Family,  and  all  to  support  the  Minister.  ...  I 
had  a  secret  Conviction,  that  it  was  best  to  publish  by  the  Press, 
the  Light  that  God  had  given  men,  to  discover  the  destructive 
and  damning  Nature  of  the  Established  Constitution  of  Relig- 
ion in  this  Colony.  .  .  .  Again  I  put  it  off  under  the  following 
Excuses :  That  I  had  not  the  Gift  that  some  had,  like  a  great 
Eagle,  &c.  to  take  off  the  Top  of  the  tall  cedars ;  but  this 
Excuse  was  taken  off,  by  a  Conviction,  that  I  am  a  Worm  which 
God  hath  prepared  at  the  Root  of  this  Gourd  .  .  .  and  in  Love 
and  Pity  to  my  dear  Country  People,  I  yielded  to  the  Conviction 
to  give  them  one  public  Warning  more."34  What  sincerity,  sim- 
plicity, and  tender  sympathy  this  man  had  in  his  heart!  Paine 
argued  that  the  ecclesiastical  constitution  was  against  the  char- 
ter and  the  Act  of  Toleration  of  William  and  Mary,  that  to 
uphold  it  meant  breaking  God's  law,  that  to  take  away  men's 
estates  without  their  leave  was  a  sin  which  God  "has  threat- 
ned  with  publick  Judgments."35  He  declared  they  had  rather 
die  than  lie  to  get  liberty.36 

Petitions  from  individuals  and  communities  also  give  vivid 
pictures  of  conditions.  Daniel  Hovey,  of  Mansfield,  was  im- 
prisoned for  refusal  to  pay  the  church  tax  and  in  1747  peti- 
tioned the  Assembly  for  relief.  He  held  liberty  of  conscience  in 
matters  of  religion  "to  be  ye  unalienable  Right  of  Every  rational 
Creature,  which  no  Authority  under  Heaven  can  deny  without 
assuming  ye  Seat  of  God.  .  .  ."37  His  conviction  and  the  denial 
of  the  right  of  appeal  he  declared  "not  only  Contrary  to  ye  Law 
of  God  &  ye  nation,  but  to  ye  Laws  of  this  Government  &  the 
Law  of  nature,  too."  He  conceived  it  contrary  to  the  law  of 
reason  that  a  man  should  be  forced  to  help  to  maintain  that 
form  of  religion  which  he  believed  to  be  contrary  to  the  Gospel 

34  Paine,  pp.  4-13.  A  like  statement  of  suffering  is  given  by  Blake,  p.  117. 

35  Ibid.,    pp.    25,    35. 

36  Ibid.,  p.  36.  Everything  religious  is  governed  by  God  "without  any  Dependence 
upon  Human  Laws,  Decrees  of  Council,  Votes  of  Towns  or  Societies"   (p.   5). 

37  Eccles.   Papers,  X.  no.   21    (C.   S.   L.). 


Controversy:  1743-1763  77 

and  that  there  was  no  foundation  for  such  practice  in  the  char- 
ter of  the  colony.  If  not  relieved,  he  must  continue  to  obey 
God,  though  he  should  be  stripped  of  all  his  worldly  goods.38 
Another  petition  of  like  sort  was  made  by  some  of  the  "Sepa- 
rates" in  Canterbury.  They  acknowledged  themselves  bound  to 
obey  the  government  "in  its  proper  place  where  God  hath  Set  it 
(viz)  in  ye  Kingdom  of  providence  for  ye  Defence  of  everyone 
in  ye  free  enjoyment  &  improvement  of  Life,  Liberty  &  pro- 
priety from  ye  force,  violence  &  fraud  of  others ;  their  diferent 
opinions  in  ecliseasticle  affairs  notwithstanding."39  But  to 
invade  the  civil  rights  and  worldly  goods  of  men  upon  pretence 
of  religion  was  "Directly  Contrary  to  ye  Law  of  God,  &  ye  act 
of  toleration  made  in  ye  Raign  of  King  William  and  maintained 
by  our  gracious  King  George."40  Nevertheless,  their  estates  had 
been  seized  and  sold,  even  the  meat  being  taken  when  none 
was  left  for  the  children.41 

In  all  these  petitions  there  should  be  noted  the  close  alliance 
of  the  laws  of  God  with  those  of  nature  and  of  Great  Britain. 
A  badly  spelled  manuscript  left  by  some  of  the  Canterbury 
"Separates"  is  an  amazing  document.  These  poor  men  insisted 
on  granting  to  others  the  freedom  they  claimed  for  themselves. 
They  were  attempting  to  live  as  they  conceived  Christians 
should.  ".  .  .  Now  there  is  Parte  of  Said  in  habitants  That 
Like  Siad  Constitution  &  Chuse  to  be  undere  it",  wrote  "Joseph 
Marshl",  a  "Separate"  pastor,  to  "Brother  Morss"  in  1763,  "& 
Part  that  Dount  But  Chuse  to  be  at  free  Liberty  to  maintain 
the  Gospel  a  thay  thinke  best  the  question  being  Put  to  the 
wholle  whether  they  all  are  agree  and  are  willing  Said  Disattis- 
fied  bretherin  Should  be  Releast  and  wee  all  Say  in  the  affermi- 
tive — as  wee  thinke  they  have  a  nateral  Right  to  act  for  tham- 
selves.  .  .  .  And  agane  you  Ob j act  aganst  our  accepting  of 
freedom  by  Name  So  that  the  Society  Can  Assess  there  members 
without  us  ...  to  which  we  ansaw  a  Say  that  they  have  as 
Good  natrel  Right  to  act  for  thamself  as  we  have  therefore  for 

38  ibid. 

S9Eccles.  Papers,  X,  no.  58,  (C.  S.  L.).  Made  in  1747  but  negatived,  as  were 
most   of  these  petitions. 

40  Blake  gives  various  quotations  from  other  documents  of  like  nature,  and 
others   are.  to  be   found   in  the  Eccles.   Papers. 

41 1.  Backus,  Letter  to  the  Reverend  Mr.  Benj.  Lord  of  Norwich,  1764,  p.  34. 
Thos.  Marsh  in  1746,  deacon  of  the  church  in  Windham,  was  imprisoned  from 
January    to   June   for    preaching    without    license. 


78  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

us  to  Say  that  wee  wont  have  freedom  unless  they  Destroy  that 
they  Jdgue  to  be  agreble  to  the  word  of  God  thoe  wee  Do  not, 
we  thike  Conterary  to  natrel  Rght  and  Christone  Libbert,  for 
us  to  Say  that  they  hant  Libberty  to  act  for  themselfe  Ceme  to 
Contredect  what  wee  have  Bene  Contending  for  to  wet  that  we 
have  unalienable  Right  to  Judge  in  matters  of  Faith  and  Prac- 
tices for  our  Selves."42  These  simple  men  could  easily  have 
given  lessons  in  toleration  to  their  betters. 

There  are  also  such  petitions  to  be  found  in  Massachusetts 
and  New  Hampshire  in  which  natural,  Christian,  and  constitu- 
tional rights  were  asserted.43  Now  and  again  among  published 
pamphlets  and  unpublished  manuscripts  there  is  an  amusing  bit 
that  makes  the  writer's  personality  stand  out  vividly.  One  such 
is  a  manuscript  book  written  largely  by  Nathan  Cole,  of  Ken- 
sington, Connecticut,  who  in  1741  had  heard  Whitefield  and 
after  two  years'  storm  of  soul  had  become  a  "Separate."  For 
years  he  was  compelled  to  pay  taxes  to  support  the  church  in 
Kensington.  Several  times  he  petitioned  for  freedom  from  these 
taxes.  All  this  he  tells  in  his  manuscript.  In  one  of  his  petitions 
he  says  he  rejected  the  Saybrook  constitution  because  he  could 
not  make  it  agree  with  God's  word  and  is  bound  in  conscience 

42  Separate  Papers,  I,  no.  184  (C.  H.  S.).  For  other  petitions  see  Eccles. ' Papers, 
X,  no.  61  (C.  S.  L.).  A  petition  by  "Separate"  Churches  in  Mansfield,  Windham, 
Colchester,  Plainfield,  Canaan,  Stonington,  Canterbury,  Voluntown,  Killingly, 
1753,  was  negatived,  but  in  17S5  those  in  Killingly  were  exempted.  "We  .  .  .  Val- 
ue Our-Selves  Highly  On  the  Privilege  of  an  English  Constitution  and  the  Civil 
Government  of  this  Colony."  It  says  also  that  the  word  of  God  forbids  such  treat- 
ment. No.  20  is  a  petition  of  1748  with  38  signers  from  Mansfield,  Windham,  Tol- 
land &  Coventry.  Nos.  36,  37,  39-57  give  examples  of  goods  sold  and  men  imprisoned 
in  Voluntown,  Plainfield,  and  Killingly.  According  to  Separate  Papers,  XI,  no.  247, 
in   1760,   the   First   Society   of   Canterbury   was  exempted. 

43  Eccles.  Papers,  vol.  XII,  nos.  626-628  a,  680,  721,  725,  and  others  (M.  S.  L.). 
A  petition  in  1749  from  the  "Separates"  of  Rehoboth,  Attleborough,  Norton,  Bridge- 
water,  Mendon,  Grafton,  Upton,  Billingham,  Hopkinton,  Uxbridge,  Athol,  Chatham, 
Easton,  Harwich,  Middleborough,  Raynham,  Sutton,  Yarmouth,  and  Roxbury  reads: 
"God  hath  given  to  every  Man  an  Unalienable  Right  in  Matters  of  His  Worship  to 
Judge  for  himself  as  his  Conscience  reserves  ye  Rule  from  God."  It  speaks  of  their 
forefathers,  the  charter,  etc.,  and  claims  they  have  been  put  in  the  stocks,  imprisoned, 
had  goods  taken,  etc.  The  petition  was  disallowed.  John  Cotton,  A  Narrative  of  the 
Transactions  at  Middleborough,  1746,  speaks  of  rights  of  mankind,  both  natural  and 
Christian  (pp.  12,  21,  23).  See  New  Hampshire  Town  Papers,  IX.  282-97,  on  trouble 
in  Exeter,  1743-44:  "Is  not  Liberty  Equally  every  mans  right  who  has  not  forfeited 
it?";  it  asserts  the  right  to  judge  for  oneself,  the  right  to  separate,  the  right  to  be 
freed  from  taxes  for  other  churches;  in  1755  they  petitioned  again;  their  opponents 
urged  that  sacred  covenants  must  be  maintained  (pp.  364-73).  There  are  petitions 
from  Hampton  Falls  and  other  places  in  volumes  XII  and  XIII,  but'  there  is  not  so 
frequent  use  of  these  arguments  as  in  Connecticut.  In  Exeter,  a  "Separate"  minister, 
Daniel  Rogers,  was  converted  by  Whitefield.  See  C.  H.  Bell,  History  of  the  Town 
of  Exeter,  p.   196. 


Controversy:  1743-1763  79 

to  obey  God  rather  than  men  when  he  cannot  make  them  agree. 
"Now  see",  he  says,  "we  are  free  born  as  much  as  you  be  & 
have  as  good  a  right  to  liberty  as  you  have  every  way  from 
God  himself  &  now  see  what  a  heavy  curs  &  dredfull  judgment 
God  has  pronounced  against  them  that  will  not  give  their 
brethern  &  fellow  servants  the  same  liberty  as  they  take  them- 
selves .  .  .  altho  we  are  English  men  &  free  born  as  any 
one.  .  .  ,"44  A  humorous  fellow  he  must  have  been  as  well  as 
an  earnest.  "Ye  civel  rulers  have  no  liberty  to  come  &  git  in 
Aarons  seat  &  make  or  mend  laws  about  religion  or  conscience 
nor  never  had  in  all  ye  whole  bible.  .  .  .  Now  men  have  been 
at  work  to  hew  down  this  Constitution  tree  of  Connecticut  &  i 
am  quit  willing  to  doo  my  part  &  it  seemeth  allmost  as  if  I  see 
people  very  desireous  to  have  this  constitution  tree  cut  down 
...  &  as  it  were  see  me  a  comeing  with  a  battel  ax  or  eternal 
truth  to  help  to  hew  down  this  tree  say  to  those  about  them 
pointing  at  me 

1  Oh  he  was  once  a  lump  of  sin 
but  now  he's  just  a  enter'g  in 
&  here  he  comes  a  willing  soul 

I  say  to  you  make  room  for  Cole 

2  See  now  Paine  Frothingham  &  Cole 
have  labour'd  with  a  willing  soul 
our  harts  unite  &  all  agree 

to  help  in  hewing  down  this  tree."45 

It  was  then  a  gallant  band  of  men,  mostly  poor,  who  struck 
such  sturdy  blows  at  this  constitution  tree.  They  believed  in 
complete  democracy  in  religious  matters,  in  entire  separation  of 
church  and  state;  that  liberty  of  conscience  in  questions  of 
religion  is  an  inalienable  right ;  that  only  the  call  of  the  Spirit 
is  necessary  to  one  who  wishes  to  preach  the  Gospel;  that, 
though  convenient  and  profitable,  the  knowledge  of  tongues 
and  liberal  sciences  is  not  absolutely  essential  to  such  a  one; 
that  it  was  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God,  of  nature,  and  of  the 
English  people  to  tax  them  to  support  a  church  not  their  own ; 
that,  in  such  case,  God,  not  man,  must  be  obeyed.46  These  doc- 

44  Nathan  Cole,  MS.  in  C.  H.  S. 

45  Ibid. 

46  See  Trumbull,  II.  191:  petition  of  S.  Paine  and  300  other  "Separates"  to  the 
Connecticut  legislature  in  1748.  See  also  Blake,  pp.  60,  62,  68,  80,  81,  117-21, 
with   many   quotations   from  original   documents. 


80  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

trines  were  in  essence  revolutionary,  yet  here,  as  in  the  protests 
of  the  ministers,  the  "Separates"  believed  they  were  the  ones 
who  were  upholding  the  fundamental  law  and  the  rights  of 
Englishmen  and  Christians,  and  that  the  legislatures  in  passing 
the  laws  against  them  were  in  reality  law-breakers.47 

The  Great  Awakening  with  its  consequent  confusions,  polit- 
ical strife,  and  doctrinal  discussions  had  stimulated  men  to  new 
and  lively  thinking  in  religious  and  civil  affairs.  It  had  brought 
with  it  much  intolerance,  yet  out  of  it  had  grown  a  passionate 
conviction  in  man's  right  to  freedom  of  conscience  and  a  strug- 
gle, partially  successful,  to  obtain  it.  It  had  brought  independent 
judgment  and  a  revulsion  against  undemocratic  methods  of 
ecclesiastical  control  and  state  interference  and  a  more  deter- 
mined devotion  to  the  old  Congregational  way  of  local  self- 
government  in  religious  affairs.  It  had  sent  men  to  their  Bibles, 
to  Sydney,  Locke,  Milton,  Hoadly,  and  other  writers  to  find 
arguments  to  support  their  cause.  Clergy  and  laity,  cultured 
and  ignorant  had  argued  for  their  legal,  constitutional  rights 
and,  whatever  the  side  to  which  they  belonged,  believed  they 
were  contending  for  the  fundamental  law  and  constitution. 

In  certain  sections,  notably  eastern  Connecticut,  it  had  stirred 
common  men  to  an  assertion  of  their  rights  and  a  willingness 
to  suffer  for  them.  It  had  made  them  peculiarly  sensitive  to 
what  they  considered  unjust  taxation.  When,  therefore,  the 
trouble  with  England  began  there  were  many  ministers  who  in 
colleges  and  parishes  had  shared  in  this  religious  conflict,  some 
who  had  suffered  because  of  their  beliefs.  There  were  laymen 
who  had  striven  for  their  "inalienable  rights"  and  had  endured 

*T  After  1763  there  were  still  petitions  such  as  those  given.  The  same  arguments 
were  used,  and  sometimes  reference  was  made  to  the  situation  in  the  colonies.  In 
such  a  request  from  the  Connecticut  towns  of  Middletown,  Haddam,  Wethersfield, 
Gassenbury,  Hartford,  Windsor,  Symbury,  and  Farmington  in  1767  they  said  that 
they  considered  their  request  altogether  reasonable.  "The  Cry  has  gone  through  this 
North  America  like  lightning,  (as  it  was)  Liberty  and  Property,  the  Attention 
Labour  and  Measures,  that  this  Colony  and  North  America  has  ben  at  and  taken 
to  secure  their  natural  and  Civil  Rights,  Argues  Strongly  in  our  favour,  that  we 
shall  Prevail  .  .  .  and  in  Proportion,  may  we  be  Incouraged,  as  our  Sacred  rights, 
are  of  more  Importance  than  our  Civil."  But  this  and  a  similar  petition  in  1770 
were  disallowed  (Eccles.  Papers,  XV,  nos.  225,  232,  C.  S.  L.).  See  no.  249,  a 
petition  in  1768  of  "Separates"  in  Colchester,  which  speaks  of  taxation  without 
representation  as  one  reason  their  ancestors  left  England;  also  nos.  184,  213, 
214  a,  239,  240.  Parker,  in  The  Congregational  Separates  of  the  Eighteenth  Cen- 
tury in  Connecticut,  p.  161,  says  that  he  believes  "it  was  in  a  large  measure 
due  to  the  Separates  that  the  revision  of  the  laws  in  1750  omitted  much  previous 
harsh  legislation,  and  that  in  1784  the  legal  establishment  of  the  Saybrook  Plat- 
form  was   abrogated." 


Controversy:  1743-1763  81 

imprisonment  and  loss  of  property  rather  than  pay  taxes  they 
deemed  unjustly  levied.  In  all  these  struggles  men  had  founded 
their  claims  upon  great  principles  of  government  and  upon  the 
support  given  to  these  principles,  as  they  believed,  by  the  Bible. 
There  were  many  men  unaffected  by  such  contentions,  many  of 
those  concerned  in  them  whose  purposes,  doubtless,  were  polit- 
ical or  economic  rather  than  religious,  but  there  is  no  doubt  that 
men  of  all  classes  not  only  had  become  more  familiar  with  the 
arguments  which  they  were  so  soon  to  apply  to  the  new  emer- 
gency, but  had  given  them  deeper  meaning  and  greater  urgency. 


Chapter  VII 

LOYALTY  AND  RESISTANCE  TO  ENGLAND : 
1754-1766 

In  the  foregoing  chapters  it  has  been  shown  that  the  New 
England  clergy  had  built  up  from  the  Bible,  from  ancient  and 
more  modern  writers,  and  from  their  own  thinking  and  experi- 
ence a  political  philosophy  in  which  they  had  implicit  faith  and 
which  they  had  through  many  years  taught  to  their  people.  It 
was  a  philosophy  by  which  they  justified  resistance  to  any  inva- 
sion of  their  natural  and  contractual  rights,  whether  the  at- 
tempted invasion  was  made  by  those  in  authority,  by  a  foreign 
enemy,  or  by  the  mob.  At  one  time  or  another  before  1763  the 
ministers  had  included  in  these  natural  rights  many  things  which 
they  cherished.  They  had  declared  the  following  rights  natural 
and  inalienable — in  religious  affairs,  the  right  of  a  church  to 
choose  its  own  ministers ;  the  right  of  having  the  various  kinds  of 
religious  covenants  preserved,  unless  by  proper  judges  one  party 
had  been  found  guilty  of  breaking  them  j1  the  right  to  read  and 
interpret  the  Bible  for  oneself  and  the  right  to  complete  free- 
dom of  conscience  ;2  in  civil  affairs,  the  right  to  freedom  of 
reading  and  of  speech,  to  the  sacredness  of  compacts,  to  the 
choice  of  officials,  to  the  right  of  trial  and  appeal,  to  the  fruits 
of  a  man's  labor,  unless  given  up  with  his  own  consent,  to  tax- 
ation for  the  good  of  the  whole  levied  by  the  people  them- 
selves, to  all  the  rights  of  Magna  Charta  and,  implied  in  all 
these,  the  right  to  resist  any  encroachment  upon  these  rights  and, 
as  a  consequence,  the  right  to  all  necessary  means  of  defence. 
Not  all  these  had  been  included  by  each  minister  who  discussed 
the  natural  rights  of  men,  but  these  and  others  had  been  at 
divers  times  asserted  as  natural,  and  as  protected  by  God  and 
the  English  government,  in  whose  fundamental  constitution 
they  lay  imbedded.  Laws  in  contradiction  of  such  rights  they 
believed  were  null  and  void.  When  Jonathan  Mayhew,  in  1763, 

1  Some  had  argued  that  in  religious  matters,  though  not  in  civil,  the  minority 
had   the   right   of   withdrawal   from   the   union   made   by   covenant. 

2  Some  interpreted  this  to  mean  freedom  from  all  taxation  to  support  the  clergy, 
but  the  majority  believed  that  it  did  not  imply  that  a  man  was  not  bound  to  pay 
a  tax  to  support  his  own  pastor  at  least  and  in  some  cases  the  pastor  chosen  by 
the  majority  of   the   parish. 

[82] 


Loyalty  and  Resistance  to  England:  1754-1766  83 

said  that  true  religion  comprised  the  love  of  liberty  and  of 
one's  country  and  the  hatred  of  all  tyranny  and  oppression,  he 
was  expressing  the  common  conviction  of  the  New  England 
ministry  that  the  civil  liberty  which  they  cherished  so  dearly 
received  its  chief  sanction  from  their  religious  faith.3 

To  the  New  England  ministers  the  government  of  Great 
Britain  after  1688  and  of  their  own  colonies  came  nearest  to 
their  ideal  of  what  government  should  be.  They  had  come  to 
the  very  brink  of  losing  all  they  held  dear  under  the  Stuarts, 
that  "set  of  degenerate  men",  that  "infamous  race"  of  "sceptred 
tyrants".4  The  Glorious  Revolution  was  founded  on  the  very 
principles  of  government  which  the  ministers  so  continually 
expounded  and  upon  them  was  based  also  the  Hanoverian  suc- 
cession.5 Under  William  III  and  the  Georges  the  English  gov- 
ernment was,  they  thanked  God,  not  arbitrary  but  legal,  a  mixed 
government  in  which  the  prerogatives  of  sovereign  and  people 
mutually  supported  each  other,  a  government  with  the  best  con- 
stitution in  the  world,  formed  on  common  reason,  common  con- 
sent, and  common  good,  by  which  the  rights  and  liberties  of 
the  people  were  carefully  guarded  and  the  rulers  were  bound 
by  law.  "The  grand  northern  Hive  .  .  .  has  been  stil'd  .  .  . 
the  Shop  of  the  nations ;  and  might  .  .  .  have  been  called  .  .  . 
the  Shop  of  Liberty,"  said  Thomas  Frink.6 

All  that  they  valued  depended,  so  they  thought,  on  the  Han- 
overian succession.  The  attempts  to  restore  the  Stuarts  and  the 

3  Mayhew,  Sermons  to   Young  Men,   1763,  p.  ix. 

*  Mayhew,  Sermons,  17S8,  p.  48;  Observations,  p.  154.  Caner  in  A  Candid  Ex- 
amination, 1763,  pp.  23,  70-72,  quotes  these  and  other  like  phrases  used  by  May- 
hew and  criticises  him  for  their  use.  There  were  many  such  references  to  the 
Stuarts  by  the  Congregational  ministers  and  to  their  salvation  from  "popery  and 
slavery."  Lockwood,  in  his  Connecticut  Election  Sermon  of  1759,  p.  12,  says: 
"When  King  Charles  the  first  attempted  to  introduce  arbitrary  Government,  it 
blew  up  a  Civil  War,  which  ended  in  the  Loss  of  his  Head;  and  when  his  Son 
King  James  the  Second,  took  large  strides  toward  arbitrary  Rule,  the  Nation 
jealous  of  their  Liberties,  invited  over  the  Prince  of  Orange."  See  especially  the 
Connecticut  Election  Sermon  of  1728  by  Buckingham,  pp.  35-36;  the  Massachu- 
setts Election  Sermons  of  1728,  by  Breck,  pp.  36-37;  of  1746  by  Foxcroft,  pp. 
70-71;    of   1747,   by   Chauncey,  p.    34. 

5  Frink,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1758,  p.  82:  "The  happy  Revolution 
ought  never  to  be  forgotten  by  Protestants,  Britons,  and  Transmarine  English." 
The  whole  sermon  is  ecstatic  on  English  government.  Lockwood,  in  his  Connecti- 
cut Election  Sermon  of  1759,  p.  13,  says:  "There  is  no  Nation  now  in  Ev>-ope, 
on  the  Earth,  whose  Civil  Government  is  like  that  of  Great  Britain  .  .  .  none  that 
exceeds,  perhaps  none,  that,  in  all  Respects,  equals  it  in  Excellency."  Haven  in  a 
sermon  at  Portsmouth,  1761,  p.  18,  says:  "The  Balance  of  our  Government  is 
hung   indeed   in  the   nicest   manner   imaginable;   a   single   Hair    will   turn   it." 

a  Frink,  p.   76,  note. 


84  The  Nezv  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

wars  with  France  kept  alive  their  fears  and  occasioned  many 
of  their  discourses.  They  never  tired  of  praising  William  III 
and  the  Georges  whose  glory  it  was  never  to  have  violated  the 
constitution  nor  invaded  the  rights  of  the  people.7  In  his 
famous  sermon  of  1760  on  Christian  Union,  Ezra  Stiles  said: 
"All  the  New  England  sects  are  loyal,  but  the  principles  of 
loyalty  to  the  illustrious  house  of  Hanover  are  inculcated  on 
the  people  by  the  congregational  clergy  with  peculiar  sincerity, 
faithfulness  and  constancy."8  It  was  partly  no  doubt  their  own 
position  and  power  which  the  clergy  were  consciously  or  un- 
consciously protecting.  It  was  in  large  part  a  devotion  to  the 
religion  and  worship  which  they  had  received  from  their 
ancestors  and  which  they  guarded  so  jealously  from  any  threat- 
ened attack.  In  the  election  sermons  it  was  a  matter  of  tradition 
and  of  policy  to  praise  the  government  of  Great  Britain.  But 
the  ministers  seem  also  to  have  had  a  deep-seated  conviction 
of  certain  principles  of  government  which  they  believed  were 
tenderly  guarded  by  the  Hanoverians. 

Not  only  did  the  ministers  laud  the  British  government,  but 
they  also  grew  eloquent  over  their  own.  In  Massachusetts  they 
talked  of  the  precious,  invaluable  privileges  secured  to  them 
by  the  charter  of  1691  and  urged  the  legislatures  and  the  gov- 
ernors to  be  very  tender  of  them.  All  the  rights  of  natural- 
born  Englishmen  had  been  confirmed  to  them  and  in  addition 
the  blessing  of  choosing  their  own  councillors,  so  valuable  a 
privilege  that  for  it  alone  the  charter  must  never  be  parted 
with.  By  great  expenditure  of  hardship,  blood,  and  treasure 
had  these  dear-bought  liberties  been  gained,  and  they  must  be 
preserved  against  both  domestic  oppression  and  foreign  slav- 
ery.9 Occasionally  a  minister  attacked  some  colonial  measure 

T  Ibid.,  p.  57.  See  also  Cotton  Mather,  Sermon  on  Christian  Loyalty,  1727,  p. 
17,  and  the  Election  Sermons  of  Breck,  1728;  Wise,  1729;  Webb,  1738,  who 
praises  George  II  for  filling  the  appointive  offices  in  Massachusetts  with  colon- 
ials (p.  24);   Eliot,   1738;   Phillips,   1750;  and  many  others. 

s  Stiles,  Discourse  on  Christian  Union,   1760,  p.   128. 

8  Appleton,  Sermon,  1742,  pp.  41-42.  Swift,  in  his  "Massachusetts  Election  Ser- 
mons", Mass.  Col.  Soc.  Pub.  I.  418,  speaks  of  the  "old  and  well-worn  themes  as 
the  inviolability  of  Charter  rights",  and  thinks  that  mention  of  them  in  so  many 
sermons  for  a  few  years  after  1738  seems  to  show  that  there  was  at  the  time 
some  special  danger  apprehended  or  that  possibly  it  was  due  to  the  slow  advance 
of  Episcopacy.  For  the.  politics  of  the  period  see  J.  T.  Adams,  Revolutionary  New 
England.  Typical  references  are:  Breck,  1728,  p.  36;  Barnard,  1734,  pp.  2,  54; 
Webb,  1738,  p.  24;  Dexter,  Sermon  in  Dedham,  1738,  pp.  261-62;  Allen,  1744, 
pp.  8,  47-48;  Chauncey,  1747,  p.  54;  Phillips,  1750,  p.  32;  Parsons,  1759,  pp. 
28-29.  For  further  details  see  Bibliography. 


Loyalty  and  Resistance  to  England:  1754-1766  85 

which  seemed  to  him  dangerous  to  the  people's  liberty.  For 
example,  an  anonymous  pamphlet  of  1754  which  attacked  a  pro- 
posed Excise  Bill  is  attributed  to  the  Rev.  Samuel  Cooper,  of 
Boston.  The  author  forcibly  presents  many  of  the  Revolu- 
tionary arguments.  Such  a  bill  would,  he  said,  deprive  the 
people  of  a  part  of  their  reserved  rights.  It  was  "inconsistent 
with  the  Natural  Rights  of  every  private  Family  in  the  Com- 
munity", and  was  an  "Entering  Wedge  into  the  Constitution." 
He  pictured  the  possible  loss  of  liberty  and  the  bloody  war 
which  would  either  restore  the  constitution  or  fix  the  people 
in  "irretrievable  Slavery"  and  urged  the  people  to  a  man  to 
unite  in  instructing  their  representatives  "to  cherish  Liberty 
and  Property."  A  friend  to  the  constitution,  he  declared,  was 
a  friend  of  God.10 

The  Connecticut  clergy  were  no  whit  behind  those  of  Mas- 
sachusetts. By  charter  they  had  been  made  a  body  politic  with 
all  the  rights  of  a  free  people,  free  to  make  their  own  laws,  to 
elect  their  own  rulers,  a  specially  valuable  privilege,  to  levy 
their  own  taxes.11  These  liberties  were  inconceivably  valuable, 
envied  by  other  governments  and,  so  said  some,  lacking  appre- 
ciation only  in  Connecticut.  Nathaniel  Hunn,  in  1747,  in  a  ser- 
mon urging  the  value  of  liberty  upon  the  legislature  and  giv- 
ing a  vivid  picture  of  a  people  oppressed  and  heavily  burdened, 
exclaimed :  "I  know  this  is  unintelligible  Language  to  the 
greater  Part  of  New  English  People.  Happy  are  you,  Sons  of 

10  The  Crisis,  June,  1754,  pp.  4-15.  The  proposed  bill  was  to  lay  an  excise  in 
order  to  pay  for  erecting  a  fort  on  the  frontier,  and  was  vetoed  by  the  Governor. 
Sabin,  IV.  515,  says:  "this  pamphlet  was  reprinted  in  London  in  1766  under  the 
title,  The  Crisis  or  a  Full  Defence  of  the  Colonics,  in  which  it  is  incontestably 
proved  that  the  British  Constitution  has  been  flagrantly  violated  in  the  late  Stamp 
Act,  and  rendered  indisputably  evident  that  the  Mother  Country  cannot  lay  any 
Arbitrary  Tax  upon  the  Americans  without  destroying  the  Essence  of  her  own 
Liberties."  The  two  pamphlets  seem  to  have  been  much  alike  or  to  have  been  con- 
fused   by    various   authors.    The    author    says :    "It    is    a    great    misfortune    that    the 

Promoters   of  the  B 11   were  so  unacquainted   with  the   British    Constitution   and 

the  patriotick  Struggles  to  preserve  it  from  this  destroying  Corroder  in   1753." 

11  Lockwood,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1759,  pp.  13-14,  16-17.  By  the  char- 
ter, "this  colony  was  made  and  constituted  a  Body  Corporate  or  Politick, 
with  all  the  Rights  and  Immunities  of  a  Free  People."  To  the  legislature  belongs 
the  right  "to  levy  and  raise  such  Taxes  upon  the  Community,  and  impose  such 
Customs  and  Duties,  as  may  be  needful  for  the  Security  of  the  People  in  their 
Lives,  Property  and  Rights,  for  the  Support  of  Government,  &  the  Peace  and 
Welfare  of  the  State  .  .  .  The  Laws  we  are  under  .  .  .  are  not  the  Sovereign 
Injunctions  of  an  arbitrary  Ruler,  but  they  are  all  Laws  of  our  own  making  .  .  . 
Our  Lives  and  Limbs,  our  Property  and  Estates,  our  Rights  and  Liberties,  our 
Characters  and  good  Names  lie  at  no  Man's  Mercy."  See  also  Bulkley,  1713,  p. 
68;  Mather,  1725,  pp.  19-20;  Buckingham,  1728,  pp.  40-41;  and  many  later  ser- 
mons. 


86  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

'  New-England,  that  you  know  it  not  by  your  own  Experience. 
.  .  .  When  I  look  over  a  numerous  Assembly  of  New-English 
People,  I  can  but  bless  God,  and  congratulate  my  Country,  at 
the  Sight  of  so  many  free  People,  who  carry  Liberty  in  their 
very  Faces,  whose  Countenances  shew  that  they  are  not  galled, 
&  born  down  by  the  ignoble  Yoke  of  Tyranny  &  Oppression  ; 
but  are  contented  &  happy  in  Liberty  &  Plenty.  .  .  Liberty 
is  New  England's  Property  and  Glory.  Let  us  bless  God  for  it, 
and  prize  &  improve  it.  .  ."12 

With  the  French  and  Indian  War  there  came  an  outburst  of 
enthusiasm  among  the  clergy.  Dennys  de  Berdt,  writing 
from  London  to  his  friend  the  Rev.  Eleazar  Wheelock,  said : 
"While  our  ministers  of  state  are  nicely  choosing  out  men  to 
fight  Amalek  lett  the  ministers  of  Christ  be  much  in  the 
Mount."13  And  assuredly  the  ministers  had  their  goodly  share 
in  the  success  of  the  English  cause.  Some  served  as  chaplains ; 
many  preached  inspiriting  sermons  to  the  troops ;  then,  as  in 
the  Revolution,  they  revived  flagging  spirits  and  won  recruits 
by  their  fiery  addresses ;  and  always  they  contrasted  the  free 
English  government  where  law  ruled  with  the  arbitrary  gov- 
ernment of  France  where  the  will  of  the  King  was  the  law 
of  the  subject.  "Would  you  see  an  End  to  Law,  and  every- 
thing depend  upon  the  Will  of  him  that  had  the  Power  over 
you?  Is  not  Slavery  in  these  Respects  a  terrible  Thing?"  asked 
John  Lowell  of  Newbury  in  1755,  urging  the  people  to  action 
against  the  enemy.14  This  was  the  key-note  to  all  the  sermons. 
"And  are  we  willing  to  give  up  our  civil  Rights  and  Privileges, 
and  become  subjected  to  Tyranny  and  arbitrary  Government? 
And  are  we  willing  to  give  up  our  Religion  ?  O !  for  God's  sake, 
let  us  think  of  our  Danger,  and  labour  to  prevent  our  Ruin.  .  . 
Your  All  lays  at  Stake."  So  exclaimed  Isaac  Morrill  in  1755 
to  a  company  of  soldiers.15 

This  danger  caused  the  ministers  to  explain  anew  the  nature 
and  value  of  a  constitutional  government  and  of  liberty,  and 

12  Hunn,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1747,  pp.  17-18.  Hunn  implies  that  some 
at  least  of  the  Connecticut  people  were  suffering  the  oppression  he  pictures. 
Connecticut  was  in  the  midst  of  the  "New  Light"  and  "Separate"  troubles  at  this 
time.  See  Welsteed,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1751,  p.  33;  Phillips,  Mass- 
achusetts  Election  Sermon,   1750,  p.    33. 

13  "Letters  of  Dennys  de  Berdt",  in  Mass.   Col.  Soc.  Pub.,  XIII.  412. 
"John  Lowell,  Sermon,  May  22,   1755,  p.  21. 

15  Isaac  Morrill,  Sermon  at  Wilmington,  April  3,  1755,  to  the  company  under 
Capt.   Phinehas  Osgood,  pp.  21-22. 


Loyalty  and  Resistance  to  England:  1754-1766  87 

not  only  the  right  but  the  duty  to  fight  if  men's  lives,  liberties, 
properties,  and  religion  were  threatened.16  They  besought  the 
people  to  realize  the  urgency  of  the  cause,  to  contribute  freely, 
and  not  to  grumble  and  think  themselves  oppressed  if  the  taxes 
were  heavy.  We  can  imagine  that  there  was  a  larger  attendance 
than  usual  on  the  ministration  of  the  clergy  during  these 
anxious  years  and  a  closer  attention  paid  to  their  words.  How 
the  ministers  played  upon  the  affections  and  fears  of  the 
people!  How  warmly  they  besought  them  to  give  generously, 
to  fight  and  fight  again  for  all  they  held  dear !  One  can  imagine 
the  ardent  Mayhew  as  he  cried :  "And  what  horrid  scene  is  this, 
which  restless,  roving  fancy,  or  something  of  an  higher  nature, 
presents  to  me,  and  so  chills  my  blood !  Do  I  behold  these  ter- 
ritories of  freedom,  become  the  prey  of  arbitrary  power?  .  .  . 
Do  I  see  the  slaves  of  Lewis  with  their  Indian  allies,  dispos- 
sessing the  free-born  subjects  of  King  George,  of  the  inherit- 
ance received  from  their  forefathers,  and  purchased  by  them 
at  the  expense  of  their  ease,  their  treasure,  their  blood !  .  .  . 
Do  I  see  a  protestant,  there,  stealing  a  look  at  his  bible,  and 
being  taking  [sic]  in  the  fact,  punished  like  a  felon!  .  .  .  Do  I 
see  all  liberty,  property,  religion,  happiness,  changed,  or  rather 
transsubstantiated,  into  slavery,  poverty,  superstition,  wretched- 
ness !"17  Better  to  die  than  be  enslaved  by  the  arbitrary  rule  of 

16  Dickinson,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1755;  Beckwith,  Connecticut  Election 
•Sermon,  1756,  pp.  7,  63;  Pemberton,  Artillery  Sermon,  1756;  Cogswell,  Sermon 
in  Pomfret  to  Co.  under  command  of  Capt.  Israel  Putnam,  April  13,  1757:  "There 
is  a  Principle  of  Self-Defence  and  Preservation,  implanted  in  our  very  Natures, 
which  is  necessary  to  us  almost  as  our  Beings,  and  which  no  positive  Law  of 
God  ever  yet  contradicted  ....  When  our  Liberty  is  invaded  and  struck  at,  'tis 
sufficient  Reason  for  our  making  War  for  the  Defence  or  Recovery  of  it.  Liberty 
is  one  of  the  most  sacred  and  inviolable  Privileges  Mankind  enjoy;  .  .  .  what 
Comfort  can  a  Man  take  in  Life  when  at  the  Disposal  of  a  despotic  and  arbitrary 
Tyrant,  who  has  no  other  law  but  his  Will:  ...  To  live  is  to  be  free:  Therefore 
when  our  Liberty  is  attacked,  and  clandestine,  underhand  Machinations,  or  open 
Violence  threaten  us  with  the  loss  of  so  dear  a  Blessing,  'tis  Time  to  rouze,  and 
defend  our  undoubted  and  invaluable  Privileges  .  .  .  When  our  Religion  is  in 
danger  ...  it  will  warrant  our  Engaging  in  War  .  .  .  Religion  is  a  treasure 
never  to  be  parted  with  .  .  .  we  fight  for  our  Properties,  our  Liberties,  our  Re- 
ligion,  our    Lives"    (pp.    10-12,   24). 

11  Mayhew,  Election  Sermon,  1754,  pp.  37-38.  Lockwood  in  his  Election  Ser- 
mon, 1759,  pp.  18,  24,  says:  "...  we  ought  I  think,  in  all  Reason,  to  take 
some  Pains  to  bring  Ourselves  acquainted  with  the  Liberties  &  Privileges  we 
enjoy;  how  they  differ  from,  and  exceed  in  Excellency  those,  of  almost  all  other 
Countries  and  Civil  Commonwealths  on  Earth  .  .  .  their  vast  Importance  and 
unspeakable  Value  .  .  .  we  .  .  are  called  to  Freedom  and  Liberty.  Liberty!  .  .  . 
May  we  never  know  it's  worth  and  inestimable  Value  by  being  strip't  and  depriv'd  of 
it."  He  lamented  the  disposition  in  Conn,  to  complain  of  the  government  and  the 
heavy  taxes,  to  imagine  they  were  being  chained  and  shackled  and  deprived  of 
their   liberty    by    the    legislative    body.    "The    Temper    &    Conduct    now    hinted    at, 


88  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

France.  Death  would  be  infinitely  more  desirable  to  those  who 
had  relished  the  "Sweets  of  Liberty  and  Property,  English- 
men's Darlings",18  than  to  suffer  the  unutterably  dreadful 
consequences  of  the  French  becoming  their  masters. 

When  the  victory  was  gained,  once  again  the  ministers  gloried 
in  the  liberties  they  enjoyed  under  the  British  constitution  and 
the  Hanoverian  house  which  had  so  well  asserted  and  defended 
the  natural  rights  of  Englishmen  and  breathed  so  free  a  spirit 
of  liberty  over  Europe.  One  at  least,  Ezra  Stiles,  of  Providence, 
looked  forward  to  a  time  when  there  would  be  formed  a  "Pro- 
vincial Confederacy,  and  a  Common  Council,  standing  on  free 
provincial  suffrage";  which  might  in  time  "terminate  in  an 
Imperial  Diet,  when  the  imperial  dominion  will  subsist,  as  it 
ought,  in  election!"19  But  the  majority  contented  themselves 
with  praising  the  existing  constitution  and  looking  forward  to 
an  era  of  peace  and  prosperity. 

It  seems  a  most  significant  fact  and  one  never  sufficiently 
realized  by  historians  that  for  the  seven  years  before  the  begin- 
ning of  the  trouble  with  England  the  people  had  heard  con- 
tinually from  the  pulpit  such  ringing  words  upon  the  unspeak- 

I  am  persuaded,  is  a  great  and  heinous  Sin"  (pp.  16-17).  See  also  S.  Bird,  Ser- 
mon in  New  Haven,  1759,  to  Co.  of  Col.  David  Wooster;  N.  Potter,  Discourse  at 
Brookline,  1758,  p.   21;  Throop,   Election  Sermon,   1758,  p.   24. 

A  sermon  which  apparently  had  much  influence  in  New  England,  as  well  as  in 
other  colonies,  was  one  preached  in  1758  by  Samuel  Davies,  a  "New  Light"  Pres- 
byterian of  Hanover  County,  Virginia,  to  the  militia.  It  won  at  once  more  volun- 
teers than  could  be  used,  whereas  before  it  had  been  almost  impossible  to  get  re- 
cruits. Davies  sent  it  to  Dennys  de  Berdt,  the  friend  of  Whitefield  and  of  many 
"New  Light"  clergy  in  the  colonies.  De  Berdt  had  it  printed  in  London  and  sent 
copies  to  Eleazar  Wheelock  and  to  others.  De  Berdt  says  in  his  preface  that  the 
discourse  had,  he  believed,  a  "Direct  Tendency  to  raise  a  Noble  Spirit  among  the 
Inhabitants  of  the  Western  World",  and  he  wrote  later  to  Wheelock  that  he  was 
glad  it  had  been  so  profitable.  See  Mcllwaine,  Religious  Toleration  in  Virginia, 
p.  232;  Writings  of  Washington,  Sparks  ed.  II.  89;  "Letters  of  Dennys  de  Berdt", 
Mass.  Col.  Soc.  Pub.,  XIII.  297,  413-19.  The  sermon  was  published  also  in  Phila. 
It  has  the  same  theories  of  government  and  natural  rights  and  the  same  martial 
spirit  as  those  of  New  England,  also  the  same  appreciation  of  William  III.  "We 
fight  for  our  People;  .  .  .  Our  Liberty,  our  Estates,  our  Lives!  .  .  .  shall  we  tamely 
submit  to  Idolatry,  and  religious  Tyranny?  No,  God  forbid:  Let  us  play  the  Men, 
since  we  take  up  Arms  for  our  People,  and  the  cities  of  our  God  ...  to  secure 
the  Liberties  conveyed  to  you  by  your  brave  Forefathers,  and  bought  with  their 
Blood"  (pp.  18-20).  This  is  the  sermon  in  which  Davies  speaks  of  Washington  as 
an  instance  of  the  kindling  of  martial  fire  in  the  country.  "As  a  remarkable  in- 
stance of  this,  I  may  point  out  to  the  Public  that  heroic  Youth  Col.  Washington, 
whom  I  cannot  but  hope  Providence  has  hitherto  preserved  in  so  signal  a  Man- 
ner, for  some  important  Service  to  his  Country"    (note  to  p.   12). 

18  Bird,   Sermon,  1758,  pp.   5,   16. 

18  Stiles,  Discourse  on  Christian  Union,  1760,  quoted  from  Sprague's  Annals, 
I.  475.  See  also  Haven,  Sermon  at  Portsmouth,  1761,  p.  17;  Wm.  Adams,  Thanks- 
giving Sermon,  1760,  p.  18;  Barnard,  Election  Sermon,  1763,  pp.  33-43. 


Loyalty  and  Resistance  to  England:  1754-1766  89 

able  value  of  their  chartered  privileges  and  their  rights  as  Eng- 
lishmen ;  of  law  and  constitution  as  contrasted  with  tyranny  and 
arbitrary  government;  of  the  danger  of  becoming  slaves  and 
losing  all  their  freedom,  civil  and  religious,  under  such  a  gov- 
ernment; of  the  justification  of  war  in  defence  of  their  cher- 
ished rights  and  liberties.  The  English  constitution  was  to  be 
defended  at  any  cost  because  it  assured  a  government  of  law, 
because  it  was  so  nicely  balanced,  each  part  with  its  own  care- 
fully defined  rights  and  limitations,  because  it  guarded  so 
jealously  the  natural  and  legal  rights  of  the  subjects.  Were 
taxes  heavy  ?  None  could  be  too  heavy  to  preserve  such  cherish- 
ed rights.  Were  recruits  lacking?  No  sacrifice  could  be  too 
great  to  defend  such  dear  liberties. 

It  is  true  that  not  an  idea  in  any  sermon  but  had  been 
presented  through  an  unbroken  continuity  of  nearly  a  hundred 
years,  but  rarely  with  such  zeal  and  fire.  Whatever  the  more 
practical  economic  reasons  for  fighting,  the  clergy  had  given 
them  the  color  and  warmth  of  idealism.  The  familiar  old  themes 
had  suddenly  roused  to  glowing  life.  The  war  associated  them 
with  danger  and  sacrifice  and  loss  and  at  last  with  victory.  If 
then,  when  the  after-war  pressure  was  upon  them  and  the 
after-war  disorder  and  irritability  were  at  their  height,  the 
Mother  Country  in  her  turn  became  exacting,  in  her  turn 
threatened  the  sensitive  western  liberty,  was  it  not  inevitable 
that  the  same  arguments  should  spring  naturally  to  their  lips  ? 
Were  they  not  defending  the  British  constitution  itself  from  a 
more  sinister  attack  than  that  by  the  French  ?  The  needed  argu- 
ments and  even  the  very  phrases  were  ready  to  their  hand  and 
had  behind  them  the  sanctions  of  tradition  and  of  religion. 

When  the  controversy  with  England  began  it  would  be  but 
natural,  provided  these  convictions  were  sufficiently  deep  and 
sincere,  that  the  ministers  should  enter  the  contest  in  support 
of  what  they  believed  their  legal  rights.  So  great  a  proportion 
entered  it  early,  and  defended  the  American  cause  so  heartily 
and  so  steadfastly  that  they  were  given  by  their  opponents  the 
credit  of  being  peculiarly  responsible.  It  will  then  be  of  especial 
interest  to  study  the  development  and  application  of  their 
theory  and  to  follow  their  activities  through  the  Revolution. 

It  was  in  March,  1765,  that  the  Stamp  Act  was  passed  and 
on  May  the  twenty-ninth  that  Patrick  Henry  introduced  his 


90  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

famous  resolutions  into  the  Virginia  House  of  Burgesses.  On 
that  same  day  the  Rev.  Andrew  Eliot  of  the  New  North 
Church  in  Boston  preached  before  the  Governor  and  General 
Court  the  annual  election  sermon.  Well  read  in  Sydney,  Locke, 
and  other  writers  on  government,  Eliot  gave  an  address  which, 
full  of  expressions  of  loyalty  to  the  English  government,  was 
yet  a  forthright  discussion  of  the  fundamental  constitution  of 
Great  Britain,  of  government  as  a  compact  and  of  the  right  of 
resistance.  In  this  sermon,  loyal  as  it  was,  he  foreshadowed 
the  main  lines  of  argument  against  England  by  the  colonists. 
He  spoke  of  the  Massachusetts  Charter  as  an  especially  sacred 
contract  between  the  King  and  their  ancestors,  of  the  con- 
stitution as  the  foundation  of  the  state,  a  kind  of  fundamental 
law  the  violation  of  which  might  well  end  in  overturning  the 
state,  of  the  grave  danger  of  touching  the  liberties  of  a  free 
people  and  greatly  altering  a  long  established  government. 
"When  a  humour  of  changing  once  begins",  he  said,  "no 
mortal  can  tell  where  it  will  end."  Hard  it  might  be  to  tell 
where  lawful  resistance  should  begin,  but  submission  to  tyran- 
nical perversion  of  power  was  a  crime,  an  offense  against  the 
state,  against  mankind,  and  against  God.  He  attributed  the 
lamented  difficulties  which  had  arisen  and  which  had  so  alarmed 
all  orders  of  men  throughout  the  colonies  to  mistakes  and  mis- 
apprehensions and  declared  that  perhaps  not  a  man  among 
them  desired  independence  of  the  mother-country.20 

Andrew  Eliot  was  one  of  a  group  of  influential  ministers  in 
Boston  and  the  towns  near  by  who  were  leaders  in  the  revolt 
against  the  Stamp  Act.  Better  known  than  he  were  Charles 
Chauncey  of  the  First  Church,  Samuel  Cooper  of  Brattle 
Square,  and  Jonathan  Mayhew  of  the  West  Church.  They  were 
friends  of  Otis,  Samuel  and  John  Adams,  John  Hancock,  and 
other  leaders,  and  had  doubtless  already  discussed  the  Writs 
of  Assistance  and  similar  signs  of  encroachment,  as  they 
believed,  on  the  part  of  England.21  Moreover,  Mayhew  had 

30  Eliot,  Election  Sermon,  1765,  pp.  41,  42,  45.  See  also  p.  13.  "All  power  has  its 
foundation  in  compact  and  mutual  consent,  or  else  it  proceeds  from  fraud  or 
violence:  .  .  .  When  government  is  founded  in  mutual  consent,  it  is  the  undoubted 
right  of  the  community  to  say  who  shall  govern  them;  and  to  make  what  limi- 
tations or  conditions  they  think  proper."  He  emphasized  the  great  privilege  of 
electing  the  councillors  and  exclaimed:  "God  grant  that  the  privilege  may  never 
be  wrested  from  us!"   (p.  4).  Cf.  also  pp.   16,  34-38. 

21  Hollis  Papers,  no.  50,  1765.  Hollis  sent  through  Mayhew  two  books  to  Otis  and 
said   he   had   read   the   latter's   Rights   of   the   British    Colonies.    From    1759    Hollis 


Loyalty  and  Resistance  to  England:  1754-1766  91 

begun  as  early  as  1763  an  attack  on  the  activities  of  the 
Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  and  what  he  deemed 
the  danger  of  the  establishment  of  an  Anglican  Episcopate  in 
America.  This  possibility  had  haunted  the  New  England  clergy 
for  some  years  and  between  1763  and  1775  seems  to  have 
caused  fear  not  only  among  clergy  but  among  laymen  as  well.22 
Nor  was  this  fear  confined  to  New  England.  From  1766  to  1775 
the  consociated  churches  of  Connecticut  frequently  met  with  the 
Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  to  discuss  the  danger 
and  to  devise  measures  to  combat  it.23  Mayhew  and  Chauncey 
were  the  most  prominent  opponents  of  the  scheme,  and  the  Rev. 
East  Apthorp,  the  Episcopal  missionary  in  Cambridge,  and  Dr. 
Chandler  of  New  YorE  perhaps  its  most  prominent  supporters. 
The  pamphlets  written  by  these  and  other  men  were  widely 
read  both  in  England  and  America. 

This  controversy  was  without  doubt  one  of  the  reasons  for 
the  almost  unanimous  and  persistent  critical  attitude  of  the 
Congregational  and  Presbyterian  ministers  toward  the  British 
imperial  policy  and  had  already  roused  many  of  them  to  watch- 
fulness before  the  passage  of  the  Stamp  Act.  It  was  the  logical 
result  of  this  fray,  as  well  as  of  their  friendship  for  Otis  and 
other  leaders  and  their  long  familiarity  with  political  and  con- 
stitutional theory,  that  the  Boston  ministers  should  share  and 
at  times  lead  the  movement  against  the  Stamp  Act.24  Mayhew 
had  long  been  writing  in  support  of  liberty,  both  civil  and 

sent  books  on  government  to  Mayhew  and  through  him  to  others  and  received 
from   Mayhew  sermons,   pamphlets,   etc.    See  Chap.    I. 

22  Hollis  Papers,  1759-1771.  Beginning  1762  Mayhew  wrote  of  this  scheme.  See 
A.  L.  Cross,  The  Anglican  Episcopate  and  the  American  Colonies,  for  full  dis- 
cussion. 

23  Records  of  the  Presbyterian  Church;  Minutes  of  the  General  Consociation.  A 
study  of  the  minutes  reveals  a  determined  opposition  to  an  American  Bishopric. 
J.  Adams,  Life  and  Works,  X.  185,  says  this  apprehension  of  Episcopacy  contri- 
buted "as  much  as  any  other  cause,  to  arouse  the  attention,  not  only  of  the  in- 
quiring mind,  but  of  the  common  people,  and  urge  them  to  close  thinking  on  the 
constitutional  authority  of  parliament  over  the  colonies."  When  Mayhew's  pam- 
phlets appeared,  says  Adams,  "The  controversy  soon  interested  all  men,  spread 
through  America  and  in  Europe  .  .  .  All  denominations  in  America  became  in- 
terested in  it,  and  began  to  think  of  the  secret,  latent  principle  upon  which  all  en- 
croachments upon  us  must  be  founded,  the  power  of  parliament.  The  nature,  and 
extent  of  the  authority  of  parliament  over  the  colonies  was  discussed  everywhere, 
till  it  was   discovered   that   it   had  none   at   all"    (pp.   187-88). 

24  Gordon,  History  of  The  .  .  .  Independence  of  .  .  .  America,  I.  102,  tells  of  the 
story  that  Whitefield  in  April  of  1764  told  Dr.  Langdon  and  the  Rev.  Jason 
Haven  of  a  secret  plot  against  the  civil  and  religious  liberties  of  New  England 
which  he  had  learned  from  the  best  authorities  in  Great  Britain.  Dr.  Langdon  is 
said   to   have  told   of   this  in   private   to  the  convention   of   ministers. 


92  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

religious,  and  was  known  all  over  America  and  in  England 
for  his  bold  attacks  on  arbitrary  power  and  for  his  arguments  in 
behalf  of  the  right  of  resistance  and  against  the  doctrine  of  pas- 
sive obedience.  His  correspondence  also  was  unusually  large.  Re- 
garding the  Stamp  Act  he  declared  himself  to  have  been  "pene- 
trated with  the  most  sensible  grief"  and  he  expressed  his  senti- 
ments boldly  in  pulpit  and  press.25  His  sermon  on  the  repeal 
of  the  Stamp  Act,  which  Eliot  thought  the  best  published  on 
this  occasion,  came  out  in  Boston  within  six  days  of  its 
delivery,  went  through  a  second  edition  the  next  year  and 
shortly  afterwards  was  published  in  England  also.  This  ser- 
mon, and  those  of  Chauncey  and  other  ministers,  asserted  that 
the  Stamp  Act  could  never  be  enforced  without  bloodshed.26  It 
was  Mayhew  who  suggested  to  Otis  in  1766  the  idea  of  circular 
letters  to  build  up  a  "communion  of  colonies".27  Friend  and 
foe  alike  gave  tribute  to  his  great  influence,  and  his  death  in 
1766  was  deeply  lamented  by  all  lovers  of  liberty.28 

Dr.  Charles  Chauncey  was  another  minister  credited  by 
John  Adams  and  others  as  being  one  of  the  leaders  in  Mas- 
sachusetts.29 Less  tolerant  than  Mayhew  in  religious  and  ec- 
clesiastical matters,  he  was  at  one  with  him  in  antagonism  to  the 
project  of  an  Episcopate  and  in  his  quick  reaction  to  the 
Stamp  Act.  He  also  by  newspaper  articles,  sermons,  and 
pamphlets   urged   opposition  and  established   its  grounds.   In 

35  H0IH9  Papers,  No.  80.  Mayhew  wrote  on  June  19,  1766,  of  the  great  wis- 
dom of  having  secured  an  influence  over  "the  Public  Prints,  which  influence  evi- 
dently had  been  of  highest  Utility  on  both  sides  the  water  &  may  &  will  & 
must  be  again."  Bradford's  Life  of  Mayhew  gives  many  letters  and  other  docu- 
ments. 

26  J.  Mayhew,  The  Snare  broken  (2nd  ed.  printed  in  Boston,  1766).  See  Bos- 
ton News  Letter,  May  22,  May  29,  1766,  May  7,  1767,  quoting  notes  on  sermon 
from  London,  in  Critical  Review  of  January.  J.  Adams,  Life  and  Works,  X.  191; 
Hollis  Papers,  no.  63,  Aug.  8,  1765.  Mayhew  wrote  that  people  were  far  from 
wishing  independence,  but  that  the  Stamp  Act  would  not  be  carried  into  effect 
without  much  blood-shed.  Mayhew  was  accused  of  having  by  a  sermon  incited  the 
mob  to  attack  Hutchinson's  house,  but  denied  it  and  was  much  hurt  by  the  story. 
Eliot  told  Hollis  that  Mayhew  had  preached  on  Liberty  but  said  not  a  word  of 
any  attack, — questioned  whether  any  of  the  rioters  had  ever  heard  of  Mayhew's 
sermon.  Next  Sunday  Mayhew  preached  against  abusing  Liberty  (Hollis  Papers,  nos. 
26-78,  115.  In  Sept.,  1765,  Mayhew  sent  Hollis  a  number  of  public  prints  about  the 
Stamp  Act  and  in  May,   1766,   several   copies  of  his  sermon  on  repeal. 

27  Tudor,   Life  of  James   Otis,   pp.   44,   145. 

28  Adams  {Life  and  Works,  IV.  29;  X.  193,  also  p.  288),  believed  that  Harrison 
Grey,  to  whom  Mayhew  had  been  an  oracle,  would  never  have  been  a  refugee, 
had  Mayhew  lived.  Cf.  Sprague,  VIII.  26;  Backus,  A  Fish  caught  in  his  own 
Net,  p.  66,  note;  Boston  News  Letter,  July  17,   1766,  Aug.  20,  1767. 

29  Adams,  Life  and  Works,  X.  271;  P.  Oliver,  Origins  &  Progress  of  American 
Rebellion,  p.  60. 


Loyalty  and  Resistance  to  England:  1754-1766  93 

his  sermon  on  the  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act  he  spoke  of  trial  by 
their  equals  and  making  grants  to  government  either  in  person 
or  through  representatives  chosen  by  themselves  as  being  in- 
alienable and  constitutional  rights  to  which  the  people  believed 
themselves  natural  heirs  and  the  defence  of  which  could  not  be 
regarded  as  either  a  lack  of  loyalty  to  the  King  or  lack  of  due 
regard  to  the  British  Parliament.30 

A  Boston  minister  who  was  among  the  first  to  oppose  the 
English  acts,  whose  influence  was  unusually  great,  and  who  was 
particularly  hated  by  the  Tories  and  the  British  was  the  polished 
gentleman,  Dr.  Samuel  Cooper  of  Brattle  Street  Church,  the 
friend  and  correspondent  not  only  of  Franklin,  Samuel  Adams, 
and  other  American  statesmen,  but  of  Europeans  as  well.  His 
counsel  was  constantly  sought  and  earnestly  weighed.  In  con- 
versation and  correspondence,  in  frequent  articles  to  the  Boston 
Gazette  and  Independent  Ledger,  in  sermons  from  his  pulpit, 
and  even  as  an  attendant  and  speaker  at  the  secret  meetings  of 
the  Sons  of  Liberty,  Dr.  Cooper  exerted  a  powerful  influ- 
ence.31 From  the  beginning  of  his  ministry  in  Brattle  Square 
in  1744  he  had  taken  an  active  part  in  public  affairs.32  From 
the  beginning  he  was  utterly  devoted  to  the  American  cause. 
One  of  the  secrets  of  his  influence  was  his  discretion  and  the 
quickness  with  which  he  worked.33  In  the  London  Political 
Register  of  1780  there  is  the  following  opinion  of  Dr.  Cooper 

80  C.  Chauncey,  Sermon,  July  24,  1766,  pp.  13-14,  19-21;  J.  Winsor,  Memorial 
History  of  Boston,  III.  123;  N.  Eng.  Hist,  and  Geneal.  Register,  1859,  p.  131. 
Cf.   the  ballad  on  "The   Boston   Ministers"  written  in   1774: 

"That  fine  preacher,  called  a   teacher, 

Of  Old  Brick  Church  the  first, 
Regards  no  grace,  to  men  in  place, 

And  is  by  tories  curst, 
At  young  and  old,  he'll  rave  and  scold, 

And  is,  in  things  of  state, 
A  zealous  Whig,  than  Wilkes  more  big 

In    Church   a  tyrant   great." 

81  Adams,  Life  and  Works,  X.  271,  274;  Sprague,  I.  443;  Tudor,  Life  of  James 
Otis,"  pp.  152-53.  Cooper  was  chaplain  to  the  General  Court,  1758-70,  1777-83. 
See  "Diary",  Amer.  Hist.  Rev.,  VI.  301-03,  and  "Letters  to  Pownall",  Amer.  Hist. 
Rev.,  VIII.  301-30.  Winsor,  Memorial  History  of  Boston,  p.  123,  quotes  from  Pal- 
frey, Sermon  in  Brattle  Square,  1824,  pp.  16-17:  "Of  the  writings  which  alternately 
stimulated  and  checked  the  public  mind  in  that  season  of  stormy  excitement,  there 
were  perhaps  none  of  greater  efficiency  than  those  of  Dr.  Cooper.  If  other  hands 
launched  the  lightning,  his  guided  the  cloud."  P.  Oliver,  The  Origin  and  Progress 
of  the  American  Rebellion  (F.  L.  Gay  Transcripts,  M.  H.  S.),  pp.  61-62,  103, 
tells  of  one  of  "those  Night  Garret  Meetings",  at  which  "the  serpentine  Dr.  Cooper" 
presided.  The  weight  was  so  great  that  the  floor  sank,  but  Cooper  survived  "to 
commit  such  atrocious  Acts  as  will   perpetuate   his   Name  with   indelible    Infamy.'' 

82  For   the  public    activity    of   Cooper,    see    Winsor,    III.  123;    Tudor,   pp.    152-53. 
88  Tudor,   pp.    152-53. 


94  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

and  his  brother.  "William  Cooper  ...  is  one  of  the  greatest 
knaves  and  most  inveterate  rebels  in  New  England.  He  is  a 
very  hot-headed  man,  and  constantly  urged  the  most  violent 
measures.  He  was  prompted  secretly  by  his  brother,  the  Rev- 
erend Samuel  Cooper,  who,  though  a  minister  of  peace  and  to 
all  outward  appearances  a  meek  and  heavenly  man,  yet  was  one 
of  the  chief  instruments  in  stirring  up  the  people  to  take  arms. 
Hancock,  and  many  leaders  of  the  rebellion,  were  his  parish- 
ioners. .  .  .  This  pastor  .  .  .  was  of  such  remarkable  popularity, 
that  the  aisles  of  the  church  would  be  thronged  with  eager  list- 
eners, and  he  was  a  favorite  of  royalists  and  rebels."34  A  ballad 
of  the  day  describes  his  skill  in  politics. 

"There's  Cooper  too,  a  doctor  true, 
Is  sterling  in  his  way ;  .  .  . 
In  politics,  he  all  the  tricks, 

Doth  wonderously  ken, 
In's  country's  cause  and  for  her  laws, 
Above  most  mortal  men."35 
Perhaps  these  ministers  were  the  most  noted  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts clergy  who  opposed  the  Stamp  Act,  but  they  were  by  no 
means  all.  It  was  more  essential  for  the  success  of  the  American 
cause  that  the  people  in  the  country  be  aroused.  Those  in  Boston 
and  the  larger  towns  were  more  immediately  under  the  influence 
of  the  lay  leaders  and  had  greater  access  to  the  press.  But  in 
the  villages  the  minister  was  of  greater  relative  importance. 
Of  the  country  ministers  in  Massachusttes  none  is   more 
interesting  than  the  Rev.  Jonas  Clark,  of  Lexington,  the  friend 
of  John  Hancock  and  Samuel  Adams  and  of  other  patriots  who 
gathered  often  at  his  home  to  discuss  politics.36  Living  simply 
among  his  people,  their  familiar  friend  and  constant  guide,  he 

34  Loring,  Hundred  Boston  Orations,  p.  9.  In  Draper's  Boston  News  Letter  of 
Sept.  17,  1775,  is  the  following:  "Last  week  the  Reverend  Doctor  Morrison  re- 
ceived a  call  to  the  elegant  new  church  in  Brattle  Street  in  Boston,  vacated  by 
the  flight  of  Dr.  Cooper;  and  to-day  he  delivered  an  excellent  discourse  to  a  gen- 
teel audience.  His  discourse  tended  to  show  the  fatal  consequences  of  sowing 
sedition  and  conspiracy  among  parishioners,  which  this  pulpit  has  been  most  wick- 
edly practicing  ever  since  the  corner  stone  was  laid."  Cf.  Moore,  Diary  of  the 
Revolution,  I.  136.  Cooper  was  often  "lampooned  and  personally  insulted"  (Tudor, 
p.    153).    For    further    activities,    see   succeeding   chapters. 

35  N.  Eng.  Hist,  and  Geneal.  Register,  1859,  p.  131,  ballad  on  The  Boston  Min- 
ister. His  "Diary",  1775-76,  gives  some  idea  of  his  large  acquaintance. 

38  Hudson,  History  of  Lexington,  pp.  161-63,  336,  338.  Clark  is  said  to  have 
had  at  times  a  controlling  influence  on  Hancock,  whose  cousin  was  Clark's  wife. 
The  night  before  Lexington,  Samuel  Cooper,  as  well  as  Adams  and  Hancock,  was 
at  his  house.  See  Cooper,  "Diary",  Amer.  Hist.  Rev.  VI.  303,  note. 


Loyalty  and  Resistance  to  England:  1754-1766  95 

was  yet  a  statesman,  thoroughly  familiar  with  constitutional 
arguments  and  theories.  For  years  before  the  Stamp  Act  he  is 
said  to  have  preached  Sunday  after  Sunday  and  explained  in 
many  a  town  meeting  the  doctrines  of  natural  and  constitu- 
tional rights  and  the  right  of  resistance.  He  is  said  to  have 
written  practically  every  public  paper  of  the  town  from  1762 
to  the  end  of  the  Revolutionary  war,  and  every  instruction  to 
the  Lexington  delegates  to  the  General  Court,  some  of  which 
in  his  handwriting  still  remain.  Instructions  to  the  town's 
representative  in  1765  gave  reasons  for  resistance.  "We  have 
looked  upon  men  as  beings  naturally  free",  he  wrote.  "What 
of  all  most  alarms  us,  is  an  Act  commonly  called  the  Stamp 
Act,  the  full  execution  of  which  we  apprehend  would  divert  us 
of  our  most  inestimable  charter  rights  and  privileges,  rob  us 
of  our  character  as  free  and  natural  subjects  and  of  almost 
everything  we  ought,  as  a  people,  to  hold  dear  .  .  .  this  Act  .  .  . 
is  imposed  in  direct  opposition  to  an  essential  right  or  privilege 
of  free  and  natural  subjects  of  Great  Britain,  who  look  upon 
it  as  their  darling  and  constitutional  right  never  to  be  taxed 
but  by  their  own  consent,  in  person  or  by  their  Representa- 
tives."37 In  these  rights  Clark  included  also  that  of  trial  by  jury. 

Another  country  minister  was  the  Rev.  Ebenezer  Parkman, 
of  Westboro,  whose  diary  gives  a  vivid  picture  of  his  mental 
agitation  during  these  early  days.  Late  in  August  he  speaks  of 
himself  as  being  greatly  agitated  over  the  situation,  especially 
that  of  Boston,  and  as  pitying  the  Governor  and  hoping  that 
he  was  innocent.  During  July  he  had  bought  Montesquieu's 
Spirit  of  Lazvs  and  by  September  6  had  read  Bishop  Hoadly's 
Measures  of  Submiss.n  to  ye  civil  Magistrate  and  felt  prepared 
to  preach  the  following  Sunday  a  sermon  which  was  double 
the  ordinary  length.  When  the  town  committee  in  October 
drew  up  their  instruction  to  their  representative  they  met  in 
his  home.38 

Probably  many  of  the  other  ministers  in  Massachusetts 
were  reading  eagerly  during  these  months.  Many  of  them  are 

"Hudson,  pp.  88-89;  See  also  pp.  342  ff;  Proceedings  and  Addresses  Com- 
memorative of  the  Two  Hundredth  Anniversary  of  Lexington,  pp.  18-20.  Quota- 
tions  from   many  of   his   papers   and   sermons   are   given   by    Hudson. 

38  Diary,  ed.  by  Harriette  M.  Forbes,  1899;  C.  H.  Bell,  History  of  the  Town  of 
Exeter,  p.  79.  Daniel  Rogers  of  the  Separate  Church  wrote  in  his  diary,  Nov.  1, 
1765 :    "The  infamous   Stamp   Act  abhorred  by  all  the   British   Colonies  took   place." 


96  The  Nezv  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

said  by  town  historians  to  have  taken  an  early  and  active  part 
in  town  activities  and  in  forming  their  people's  minds.39  When 
the  Stamp  Act  was  repealed  sermons  of  rejoicing  were  preached 
and  eight  were  published  in  Massachusetts  alone,  some  of 
which  went  into  several  editions.40  Two  of  the  most  fiery  were 
those  of  William  Patten,  of  Halifax,  and  Joseph  Emerson,  of 
Pepperell. 

Patten  defined  in  much  detail  natural  liberty  and  equality 
and  declared  that  as  members  of  civil  society  men  had  a  right 
to  every  branch  of  liberty,  which  they  had  not  surrendered. 
That  the  British  subject  in  America  had  equal  rights  with 
those  in  Britain  and  possessed  them  "as  inherent  and  inde- 
feasible" he  thought  beyond  question.  He  described  the  perils 
through  which  their  ancestors  had  fulfilled  their  side  of  the 
compact  made  with  the  king  and  the  rights  which  were,  in 
return,  promised  them ;  those  of  free-born  Englishmen,  includ- 
ing a  right  to  their  own  estates,  taxation  by  their  own  repre- 
sentatives, trial  by  their  peers,  and  the  special  privileges  of 
freedom  of  conscience,  and  the  freedom  from  all  taxation  from 
abroad  in  return  for  the  fifth  part  of  their  gold  and  silver  ore. 
He  quoted  Sydney  in  talking-of  government  based  on  compact 

38  One  of  them  was  Samuel  West,  of  Dartmouth,  a  classmate  and  friend  of 
Hancock,  with  whom  he  had  great  influence,  and  a  friend  of  Otis,  Robert  Treat 
Paine,  and  other  leaders.  He  was  poor  and  served  a  parish  of  plain,  uneducated 
people.  See  Sprague,  VIII.  pp.  38-41.  Another  was  David  Sanford,  of  Medway; 
cf.  Jameson,  History  of  Medway,  pp.  426-27.  Jeremy  Belknap,  of  Dover,  N.  H., 
wrote  pamphlets  and  articles  in  New  Hampshire  Gazette  and  in  Boston  papers;  cf. 
Moore  and  Farmer,  Coll.  Topog.,  Hist,  and  Biog.,  p.  39.  Henry  Cummings,  of 
Billerica,  Mass.,  was  "a  man  of  the  people"  and  leader  in  town  councils;  cf. 
Hazen,  History  of  Billerica,  pp.  227-28,  262  ff.  Samuel  Cooke,  of  Arlington,  a 
friend  of  Hancock,  Adams,  etc.;  cf.  Parker,  Town  of  Arlington,  pp.  51,  190-91. 
40  See  Love,  Fast  and  Thanksgiving  Days  of  New  England,  pp.  541-42  (8  in  Mass., 
1  in  Conn.,  1  in  R.  I.,  1  in  Ga.).  A  sermon  by  Nathaniel  Appleton,  of  Cambridge, 
was  printed  at  expense  of  Gen.  Brattle  and  sent  to  de  Berdt  in  London  (Mass.  Col. 
Soc.  Pub.,  XIII.  319).  Others  were  by  Samuel  Stillman  of  the  First  Baptist  Church 
in  Boston,  who  Winsor  says  was  "one  of  the  powerful  preachers  of  the  Revolu- 
tion. The  unattached  crowd  thronged  to  his  obscure  little  church  at  the  North 
End"  (Winsor,  Memorial  History  of  Boston,  III.  125).  A  ballad  of  the  day, 
printed  in  N.  Eng.  Hist,  and  Geneal.  Register,  p.  132,  sings  of  him: 
"Last  in  my  list  is  a  Baptist, 

A  real  saint,  I  wot, 
Though  nam'd  Stillman,  much  noise  he  can 

Make  when  in  pulpit  got. 
The  multitude,  both  grave  and  rude, 

As  drove  by  wind  and  tide 
After  him  hie  when  he  doth  try 
To  gain  them  to  his  side." 
Others   were   published   by  Joseph    Emerson,   of   Pepperell,   Elisha   Fish,   of   Upton, 
Wm.  Patten,  of  Halifax. 


Loyalty  and  Resistance  to  England:  1754-1766  97 

and  consent,  and  Locke  on  the  right  of  the  people  to  judge  as 
to  whether  wrong  had  been  done  them.  He  spoke  of  the  luck- 
less Charles,  of  James  "with  his  Andros,  and  Randolph  and  the 
rest  of  his  crew  in  this  government",  and  exhorted  his  people 
to  stand  fast  in  the  liberty  which  had  been  given  them  by  the 
God  of  nature  and  the  British  constitution.41 

Even  more  vigorous  and  ardent  was  the  sermon  of  Joseph 
Emerson.  Its  glowing  words  must  have  deeply  stirred  its  hear- 
ers. Emerson  painted  the  dangers  of  the  Stamp  Act  in  blackest 
dye  and  its  repeal  as  a  marvelous  deliverance  from  slavery.42 
He  emphasized  the  injustice  of  trial  by  courts  of  admiralty 
without  a  jury,  which  he  believed  directly  contrary  to  Magna 
Charta.43  He  connected  civil  and  religious  freedom.  He  de- 
scribed the  suspension  of  trade  and  other  miseries  and  imagined 
the  evils  they  would  have  suffered  had  not  the  repeal  occurred, 
among  others  the  possibility  of  having  to  support  diocesan 
bishops  and  even  of  becoming  tributary  to  Rome,  and  finally 
the  horrors  of  civil  war.  "In  the  supposed  case,  we  should  have 
fought  ....  for  our  children,  our  wives,  our  liberty,  our 
religion,  for  everything  near  and  dear  to  us ;  and  the  issue 
might  have  been  the  destruction  of  the  British  empire."44  At 
first  indeed  few  saw  the  danger,  he  said,  but  "upon  the  spread- 
ing of  some  nervous  pieces",  which  made  the  matter  clear,  all 
were  roused  and  a  noble  ardor  ran  from  breast  to  breast.  Be- 
lieving that  many,  if  not  most  of  his  hearers  were  ignorant  of 
the  history  of  the  trouble  with  Andros,  Patten  described  it  at 
length,  quoting  Cotton  and  Increase  Mather,  and  urged  his 
people  to  teach  their  children  the  wonderful  history  of  their 

41  Patten.  Thanksgiving  Sermon,  1766,  pp.  6-18:  "Whoever  in  his  senses,  (un- 
less he  had  the  temper  of  a  slave)  ever  submitted  his  liberty;  to  the  absolute 
disposal  of  others,  under  the  notion  of  their  being  the  sole  judges  of  right  and 
wrong?"  lie  deprecates  recent  violence  but  thinks  some  have  cause  to  be  thankful 
that   only   their    effigies   have   been    hung.    pp.    18-20   ff. 

42  Emerson,  Thanksgiving  Sermon,  1766,  p.  9.  "And  what  is  the  great,  the  mighty 
deliverance  we  have  experienced?  Does  it  deserve  a  commemoration?  Yes,  if 
anything  great  and  good  ever  did.  Is  it  worthy  to  be  handed  down  to  posterity? 
Yes,  to  be  printed  in  a  book  and  preserved  with  sacred  care  as  long  as  time 
shall  last.  Is  it  of  such  value  as  to  demand  a  whole  day  to  be  spent  in  praising 
God  for  it?  Yes,  our  lives, — yea,  eternity, —  as  it  is  what  our  Savior  purchased 
for  us,  and  as  there  are  such  glorious  things,  of  a  spiritual  nature,  connected 
with  it.  And  what  is  it?  A  deliverance  from  slavery; — nothing  less  than  from 
vile    ignominious   slavery." 

43  Ibid.,  pp.  10-11.  Pepperell  was  on  the  borders  of  N.  H.,  and  Emerson  may 
have  been  interested  in  the  controversy  between  Conn,  and  N.  H.  over  an  ad- 
miralty judge.   See  J.  T.  Adams,  Revolutionary  New  England,  pp.   258-59. 

"Ibid.,  pp.    11-14. 


98  The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

ancestors,  to  train  them  in  the  principles  of  liberty,  to  tell  them 
that  they  were  of  the  same  blood  as  those  who  stood  so  nobly 
against  King  Charles,  "frighted  his  Son  from  the  throne,  and 
then  declared  it  vacant",  to  tell  them  of  the  resolute  stand  in 
the  year  1765  and  charge  them  never  to  yield  their  privileges, 
even  at  the  hazard  of  their  lives.45 

It  is  sometimes  through  the  eyes  of  an  enemy  that  a  man's 
or  a  group's  power  can  best  be  seen.  Peter  Oliver,  the  last 
Chief  Justice  under  the  colonial  regime  in  Massachusetts,  held 
the  dissenting  ministers  in  detestation  as  the  henchmen  of  James 
Otis.  Otis,  says  Oliver,  saw  from  the  beginning  the  necessity  of 
securing  "the  black  Regiment",  if  he  were  to  rouse  the  people. 
He  therefore  made  sure  of  the  support  of  the  leading  Boston 
clergy  who  "had  imbibed  the  principles  of  the  people"  and 
whose  influence  over  the  lesser  ministers  was  extraordinary. 
Thus  Otis  had  gained  the  support  of  the  black  coated  order 
who,  says  Oliver,  "like  their  Predecessors  of  1641  .  .  .  have 
been  unceasingly  sounding  the  Yell  of  Rebellion  in  the  Ears 
of  an  ignorant  &  deluded  People."46 

Influential  as  were  the  ministers  of  Massachusetts  in  rousing 
and  keeping  alive  opposition  to  the  Stamp  Act,  those  of  Con- 
necticut played  even  a  more  important  part  in  these  early  days. 
In  1764  the  Connecticut  Assembly  had  decided  to  make  the 
best  defence  possible  to  the  proposed  tax.  It  decided  to  collect 
arguments  which  were  to\  be  printed,  sent  to  London,  and 
dispersed  throughout  the  colony.47  By  the  summer  of  1765, 
however,  the  educated  classes  in  general  had  become  some- 

45  Ibid.,  pp.  22-30.  He  also  urged  them  to  have  a  reverence  for  lawful  au- 
thority   and    cultivate    an    affection    for    the    mother-country    (pp.    31-32). 

46  P.  Oliver,  Origin  and  Progress  of  the  American  Rebellion,  pp.  39,  58-60. 
"Mr.  Otis  and  his  Myrmidons  the  Smugglers  &  the  black  Regiment  had  in- 
stilled into  the  Canaille,  that  Mr.  Hutchinson  had  promoted  the  Stamp  Act.  .  .  it 
was  in  vain  to  struggle  against  the  Law  of  Otis,  &  the  Gospel  of  his  black 
Regiment"  (p.  73).  Oliver  speaks  of  the  great  influence  of  the  election  and  con- 
vention sermons  and  the  annual  meetings  of  the  clergy  at  Boston.  Not  all  dis- 
senting ministers  opposed  the  English  government,  nor,  of  course,  did  the  Ang- 
lican  clergy.    See  later  chapters. 

47  Stiles,  Itineraries,  p.  509.  On  the  committee  which  had  this  in  charge  was 
John  Hubbard,  the  father  of  Rev.  Ezra  Stiles,  then  pastor  in  Newport,  R.  I. 
Hubbard,  considering  himself  unfit,  turned  to  Stiles  for  help,  and  begged  him 
to  send  whatever  he  could  collect  and  suggest,  saying  that  it  would  be  well, 
provided  R.  I.  were  to  engage  in  a  similar  scheme,  to  have  the  same  argu- 
ments used  by  all  the  governments  concerned.  Noah  Welles,  in  his  Election 
Sermon,  May  10,  1764,  spoke  of  the  blessings  of  liberty,  and  the  necessity  of 
cultivating  a  love  for  it  if  life,  liberty,  and  property  were  to  be  secured  (pp. 
16-17).  He  spoke  at  length  of  the  blessings  ot   the  English  Constitution. 


Loyalty  and  Resistance  to  England:  1754-1766  99 

what  lukewarm  and  inclined  to  submit  to  the  inevitable.  Certain 
of  the  ministers  were  alarmed  at  the  lack  of  interest  and  re- 
solved to  awaken  people  to  a  realization  of  their  situation,  as 
the  ministers  saw  it.48 

Early  in  August  the  Rev.  Naphtali  Daggett,  then  professor 
of  Divinity  at  Yale,  wrote  under  the  name  of  "Cato"  an 
article  to  the  Connecticut  Gazette  against  those  "vile  mis- 
creants", the  American  collectors  of  the  stamp  tax,  who  had 
"no  slightest  spark  of  love  for  their  country."49  He  censured 
bitterly  those  who  were  complaining  with  the  tongue  and  pen 
only.  This  article  is  said  to  have  been  reprinted  widely  from 
New  Hampshire  to  Pennsylvania  and  to  have  met  with  general 
approval.  It  was  but  the  first  of  a  series  of  articles  by  Daggett. 
He  was  soon  joined  by  the  Rev.  Stephen  Johnson,  the  "for- 
gotten patriot"  of  Lyme. 

Johnson  had  graduated  from  Yale  in  1743  in  the  midst  of 
the  "New  Light"  trouble  and  was  in  1765  pastor  of  the  largest 
church  in  Lyme,  a  little  village  but  one  of  some  importance.  In 
September,  1765,  after  having  seen  some  papers,  perhaps  the 
Virginia  Resolves,  brought  secretly  from  New  York  by  his 
friend  and  neighbor,  John  McCurdy,  he  began  a  prolonged  and 
successful  attempt  to  arouse  greater  resistance  to  the  Stamp 
Act.50  He  published  under  a  pseudonym  in  the  New  London 

48  Hollister,  History  of  Connecticut,  II.  130-31.  Of  the  cultivated  classes, 
the  clergy  "were  for  awhile  almost  alone  in  their  opposition  to  the  measure.'' 
Gordon  {History  of  .  .  .  Independence  of  .  .  .  America,  I.  117)  says  that  tht 
inhabitants  were  inattentive  and  the  judges,  perfectly  secure,  were  unalarmed. 
Cf.  Martha  Lamb,  "Lyme,"  Harper's  Magazine,  Feb.  1876,  p.  19.  Massachusetts 
Gazette  and  Boston  News  Letter,  Aug.  29,  1765:  "No  domestic  News  in  thf 
New  York  and  Connecticut  Papers.  We  can't  learn  they  have  carried  their 
Resentment  in  the  Neighboring  Government  to  any  great  Length  against  those 
who  were  appointed  Stamp  Officers."  Cf.  Centennial  Papers  of  General  Con- 
ference of  Connecticut,  p.  17.  Fowler  says  that  governor,  legislature  and  judges 
were  indifferent,  but  that  the  people  were  opposed.  The  Election  Sermon,  1765, 
by  Ed.  Dorr,  of  Hartford,  is  very  different  in  tone  from  that  of  Andrew  Eliot, 
of   Boston. 

49  E.  Atwater,  ed..  History  of  the  City  of  New  Haven,  pp.  39,  49,  216-17.  J.  T. 
Adams  {Revolutionary  New  England,  p.  334)  says  Daggett  had  held  for  ten  years  a 
grudge  against    Ingersoll. 

50  Gordon,  History  of  .  .  .  Independence  .  .  .  of  America,  I.  117;  Hollister, 
History  of  Connecticut,  II.  130-31;  F.  Morgan,  ed.,  Connecticut  as  a  Colony  and 
as  a  State,  II.  43 ;  Martha  Lamb,  "Judge  Charles  Johnson  McCurdy,"  in  Mag.  of 
Amer.  Hist.,  XXVI.  331.  John  McCurdy  was  an  Irishman  of  Antrim.  He  and 
Johnson  lived  on  the  post  road,  entertained  many  guests,  discussed  the  indepen- 
dence of  America,  etc.  Lyme  had  wide  business  interests,  its  store  was  the  only  one 
between  New  London  and  Guilford.  It  sent  vessels  to  the  West  Indies,  Holland, 
and  Ireland.  McCurdy  in  1765  had  seen  copies  of  the  Virginia  Resolves  in  N.  Y., 
and  is  said  to  have  brought  one  home.  Articles  by  Johnson,  which  were  published 
secretly,  are  said  to  have  inspired  the  organization  of   Sons   of   Liberty.    Cf.    Lamb, 


100         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

Gazette  six  carefully  reasoned  articles  which,  like  Daggett's, 
were  copied  widely  in  other  papers.51  He  is  said  to  have  written 
anonymous  pamphlets  and  to  have  traveled  through  Connecti- 
cut and  parts  of  Massachusetts  arousing  the  people  against  the 
measure.  In  December  he  preached  a  most  vigorous  sermon 
to  his  own  people  and  published  it  anonymously  as  a  pamphlet.52 
In  all  the  newspaper  and  pamphlet  literature  of  the  time  none 
give  more  clearly  the  arguments'  against  Great  Britain,  none 
advocate  more  forcibly  unqualified  rebellion,  and  none  speak 
more  plainly  of  the  threatened  independence  of  the  colonies. 
In  his  first  articles  Johnson  wrote  warmly  of  the  crisis  as  the 
greatest  America  had  ever  seen.  He  called  the  colonial  charters 
compacts  of  such  a  nature  that,  if  broken  on  the  one  side,  no 
obligation  lay  upon  the  other.  He  spoke  of  the  essential,  funda- 
mental constitution  of  England  and  the  privileges  guaranteed 
by  it,  of  the  rights  which  were  antecedent  to  all  earthly  gov- 
ernment, derived  from  the  "great  Legislator  of  the  Universe", 
the  loss  of  which  would  entail  slavery  upon  their  posterity.  He 
urged  the  people  not  to  be  lulled  into  security,  to  choose  repre- 
sentatives who  would  not  be  bought  or  cowed  into  submission, 
and  to  give  these  representatives  their  definite  instructions.  He 
urged  a  union  of  all  the  colonies.  The  other  five  articles  were 
detailed  arguments,  setting  forth  the  natural  rights  of  man  and 
the  rights  of  Englishmen  and  their  history.  He  suggested  the 
scattering  of  pamphlets  by  the  thousands  in  America,  in  Eng- 
land, Ireland,  and  France,  urged  that  foreign  manufactures  be 

in  Harper's,  Feb.  1876,  pp.  19-20;  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  V.  516; 
E.  E.  Sill,  A  Forgotten  Connecticut  Patriot,  pp.  8-9,  37-44.  Johnson  inherited  the 
library  of  his  father-in-law,  Wm.  Diodate,  of  New  Haven,  nearly  100  volumes. 
E.  Stiles,  Itineraries,  pp.  265-67;  Dexter,  Yale  Biographical  Sketches,  1701-45. 
p.   739. 

51  See  note  50.  Also  Stiles'  Papers,  I,  III,  IV:  six  articles  in  New  London 
Gazette,  the  first  signed  "Addison",  others  "A  Freeman  of  the  Colony  of  Con- 
necticut", Sept.  6,  Sept.  20,  Sept.  27,  Oct.  4,  Oct.  11,  Nov.  1;  the  first  addressed 
to  the  Freeman  of  the  Colony  of  Connecticut,  the  last  five  to  the  Printers.  Sept. 
20th  is  missing  in  Stiles'  Papers,  but  was  found  copied  in  the  Boston  Evening  Post, 
Oct.  14,  1765  and  later  numbers.  The  article  of  Sept.  6  was  copied  Sept.  23  and 
praised  in  the  Boston  Gazette  &  Country  Journal.  The  New  London  Gazette  for 
Sept.  20th  is  missing  in  the  Yale  Coll.  On  Nov.  1st,  Stiles  Papers  IV,  Stiles  notes, 
"This  is  part  of  a  publication  in  five  New  London  papers  by  the  Reverend  Stephen 
Johnson."  In  these  Johnson  quotes  Sydney,  Selden,  and  others.  Sill,  p.  38,  says  the 
excitement  caused  by  these  papers  was  great,  that  fleet  riders  carried  them  to 
all   the   colonies   and  there   they   were   reprinted. 

52  Some  Important  Observations,  Occasioned  by,  and  adapted  to,  The  Publick 
Fast,  Ordered  by  Authority,  December  18th,  A.  D.  1765.  This  was  published  in 
Newport,  Dec.  1765  and  was,  according  to  Love,  the  only  Fast  Sermon  published 
that  year.  Cf.  Love,  Fast  and  Thanksgiving  Days  of  New  England,  p.  541. 


Loyalty  and  Resistance  to  England:  1754-1766         101 

used  as  little  as  possible,  and  advocated  free  trade  with  Eng- 
land only  on  condition  that  the  Stamp  Act  be  repealed.  He 
pleaded  for  spirited  resistance,  even  to  the  sacrifice  of  lives  and 
fortune,  and  foresaw  danger  of  war.53 

Johnson's  Fast  Day  Sermon  is  one  of  the  most  interesting 
and  most  vigorous  of  all  the  Revolutionary  pamphlets.  He 
called  the  Stamp  Act  "high  and  aggravated  injustice",  the  "en- 
slaving of  a  free  people".  The  abolition  of  their  charters  and 
privileges,  he  said,  the  annulling  of  their  governments  and  legal 
securities,  dissolved  the  connection  of  the  colonists  with  Great 
Britain  and  left  them  "absolutely  in  a  state  of  nature  and 
independency".54  Should  such  a  thing  happen,  he  saw  no  rea- 
son why  they  should  not  choose  what  government  they  wished, 
or  connect  themselves  anew  with  Great  Britain  or  any  other 
power,  although  they  would  no  doubt  be  careful  "to  place  no 
undue  confidence  where  grants,  charter,  and  legal  securities, 
are  deemed  but  as  waste-paper."55  Independence,  though  not 
desired,  had  often  been  forced  upon  the  oppressed,  he  said.  It 
had  happened  in  Rehoboam's  time,  it  had  happened  in  Holland, 
and  it  was  possible  that  it  might  happen  also  to  the  British 
colonies.  Certainly,  if  it  came  to  a  choice  of  slavery  or  inde- 
pendence, they  would  not  hesitate.56  No  obedience  was  due  to 
any  edicts  which  were  unconstitutional.  "It  is  a  flagrant  ab- 
surdity to  suppose  a  free  constitution  empowers  any  to  decree 
or  execute  its  own  destruction:  For  such  a  militating  self- 
repugnancy  in  a  constitution,  necessarily  carries  its  own  de- 
struction in  it.  No  obedience  is  due  to  them  by  the  law  of 
God."57  Where  executive  and  legislative  authority  exceed  the 
bounds  of  the  law  of  God  and  the  constitution,  then  their  acts 
are  ipso  facto  void.  Men  have  not  only  no  right  to  give  up 
liberty,  they  cannot  do  it  without  betraying  the  invaluable  rights 

63  New  London  Gazette,  Sept.  6,  1765;  also  Stiles  Papers.  "O  my  Country!  for 
you  I  have  wrote;  for  you  I  daily  pray  and  mourn,  and  to  save  your  invaluable 
Rights   and    Freedom,    I    would    willingly    die"    (Nov.    1st). 

51  Johnson,  Fast  Day  Sermon,  Dec.  1765,  p.  18,  note.  He  could  not,  he  said, 
understand  English  politics  which  tended  to  "alienate,  impoverish,  and  ruin  the 
colonies;  and  stab  to  the  heart,  the  trade  and  manufactures  of  Great  Britain  .  .  . 
which  must  render  the  settled  colonies  unserviceable  to  Great  Britain,  in  peace 
and  war;  and  render,  in  a  measure,  useless  those  immense  tracts  of  uninhabited 
crown  lands  in  America"  (pp.  16-17,  note).  This  is  the  first  mention  of  a  possible 
return   "to  a  state  of  nature". 

55  Ibid.,   p.    18,   note. 

mIbid.,   pp.    19-20. 

w  Ibid.,  p.    21. 


102         The  Nezu  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

of  posterity.  Referring  to  Locke,  Johnson  said  any  attempts  to 
take  away  their  natural  rights  constituted  a  state  of  war  in  which 
the  people  might  reassume  and  defend  these  rights.  He  extolled 
the  British  constitution  in  which  each  part  was  bound  abso- 
lutely by  law  and  declared  that  Britain  had  been  the  first  to 
break  it,  whereas  the  colonists  were  only  supporting  it.  "May 
we  not  ask,"  he  said,  "who  is  the  aggressor,  he  that  invades 
the  right  of  a  free  people,  or  they  who  defend  only  what  is  theii 
own?"58  Events  big  with  fate  urged  them  to  the  strongest  pos- 
sible resistance,  "for  who  knows  the  fatal  consequences  (if 
relief  fails)  whether  the  British  empire  may  not  be  shattered 
into  parties,  torn  into  pieces,  and,  in  the  end,  broken  up  and 
ruined.   'A  kingdom   divided   against   itself,   cannot   stand'."59 

Other  clergymen  soon  took  up  the  work, — in  eastern  Connecti- 
cut Ebenezer  Devotion,  of  Windham,  who  in  1765  was  elected 
to  the  Assembly,  Elizur  Goodrich,  of  Durham,  Philemon  Rob- 
bins,  of  Branf ord,  and  many  others ;  and  in  the  west,  Noah 
Welles,  of  Stamford,  Cotton  Mather  Smith,  of  Sharon,  Judah 
Champion,  of  Litchfield,  as  well  as  a  few  other  "New  Lights".60 

The  movement  seems  to  have  been  strongest  at  first  in  the 
eastern  counties.  Windham  had  been  settled  largely  by  people 
from  Massachusetts,  friendly  therefore  to  Boston  and  trading 
with  her.  The  East  was  the  home  of  more  industries  and  greater 
commerce.  Morever,  it  was  in  these  eastern  counties  that  the 
"New  Light"  and  "Separate"  movement  had  been  strongest 
and  the  people  were  more  "uneasy"  than  in  the  west.61  Local 
politics  also  entered  to  some  extent  into  the  movement.  The 
"New  Light"  faction,  strongest  in  the  East  and  with  a  few 

58  Ibid.,  p.  26.  See  also  pp.  5,  22,  31-32.  The  doctrine  of  subjection  "is  of 
dreadful  consequences  ...  In  the  British  empire,  'tis  a  doctrine  of  rebellion,  it 
breaks  up  our  allegiance,  which  we  owe  and  have  sworn  to  King  George  II"  (p. 
26). 

50  Ibid.,  pp.  38,  40,   56.  etc. 

60  Hollister,  History  of  Connecticut,  II.  130-31.  "They  impugned  the  Stamp  Act 
in  their  sermons,  they  classed  its  loathed  name  in  their  prayers  with  those  of  sin, 
satan,  and  the  mammon  of  unrighteousness."  See  Gordon,  I.  117;  Atwater,  History 
of  Citr  of  New  Haven,  p.  34;  Lamed,  Windham  County,  II.  54.  Devotion  was 
noted  for  his  political  ability;  Stiles  thought  his  election  "a  very  singular  instance" 
(Sprague,  I.  508-10) ;  Goodrich  was  repeatedly  delegate  to  Convention  of  Synod  of 
Philadelphia  and  New  York,  had  prepared  many  boys  for  college,  had  early  studied 
arguments  for  right  to  resistance,  preached  them  in  the  pulpit,  was  known  for  his 
zeal  in  American  cause.  Cf.  Love,  Fast  and  Thanksgiving  Days  of  New  England,  p. 
331;    Huntingdon,   History   of  Stamford,   Connecticut,   p.    202;    Headley,    pp.    308-09. 

61  Stiles,  Itineraries,  pp.  265-67;  283,  296-97,  299,  588;  Tracy,  Great  Awakening, 
p.    315. 


Loyalty  and  Resistance  to  England:  1754-1766        103 

adherents  in  Fairfield  County,  wanted  to  control  the  govern- 
ment and  to  oust  Governor  Fitch.62  Undoubtedly  the  return 
in  1765  of  the  popular  Colonel  Putnam  to  Pomfret  and  his 
uncompromising  hostility  to  the  Stamp  Act  was  one  of  the 
reasons  for  the  prominence  of  Windham  County  in  these  early 
proceedings.63  But  whatever  other  causes  may  have  been  con- 
tributory, certainly  the  activity  of  Johnson  and  other  ministers 
should  not  be  overlooked  or  their  influence  underestimated.64 

In  these  eastern  counties  the  Sons  of  Liberty  grew  rapidly 
in  numbers  and  in  power.  From  Windham  and  New  London 
counties  almost  entirely  came  the  band  of  five  hundred  excited 
patriots  who  met  Ingersoll,  the  stamp  agent,  on  his  way  to 
Hartford,  forced  him  to  shout  "Liberty  and  Property"  and 
resign  his  office.65  From  these  towns  came  early  and  concerted 
action  in  common  meetings.  Their  resolutions  show  clearly  the 
effect  of  the  teachings  of  the  clergy.66  Those  of  Lyme  early  in 
January  reflect  very  evidently  the  influence  of  Johnson's  ser- 
mon in  December.67 

If  the  published  sermons,  articles,  and  pamphlets  of  the  New 
England  ministers  are  a  good  sample  of  those  which  were 
heard  from  very  many  of  the  pulpits  during  1765  and  1766, 

62  Stiles,  Itineraries,  pp.  509-10,  588.  John  Hubbard  wrote  in  1766:  "Among 
other  fine  Devices  to  set  people  by  the  Ears  a  Man's  religious  Principles  are  made 
the  Test  or  shall  I  say  the  badge  of  his  political  Creed.  An  Arminian,  and  a 
Favourer  of  the  Stamp  Act  signify  the  same  Man."  The  "New  Lights"  defeated 
Fitch  and  elected  Pitkin.  See  Stiles,  pp.  63,  492;  Centennial  Papers  General  Con- 
ference of  Connecticut,  p.  61.  J.  T.  Adams,  Revolutionary  New  England,  pp.  260- 
62,  speaks  of  another  question  which  divided  the  people  of  Connecticut,  that  of  land 
speculation  and  the  Susquehannah  Co.  Fitch  opposed  the  scheme,  as  did  the  English 
government.    See   also  pp.    324-28. 

63  Larned,   History  of   Windham    County,   II.    4-5. 

ei  For  full  account  of  Stamp  Act  troubles  see  Gipson,  Jared  Ingersoll;  J.  T. 
Adams,  Revolutionary  New  England.  Neither  lays  any  weight  upon  the  influence 
of  the  clergy. 

85  Stiles,  p.  63:  "The  Western  part  were  less  vigorous  and  were  awed  by  the 
Anti-American  Measures."  Also  pp.  492,  509-10,  letters  from  Rev.  Chauncey 
Whittlesey,  Benj.  Gale,  and  John  Hubbard;  E.  S.  Lines,  "Jared  Ingersoll,"  New 
Haven  Colony  Hist.  Soc,  IX.  192.  For  full  account  see  Gipson.  By  March  of  1776 
parts  at  least  of  the  western  counties  had  caught  the  fever.  See  Massachusetts 
Gazette  and  Boston  News  Letter,  Mar.  13,  1766,  Connecticut  Courant,  Feb.  3,  1766. 
The  action  of  Wallingford  was  perhaps  due  in  part  to  the  Rev.  James  Dana.  See 
Davis,   History  of   Wallingford,  p.   366. 

60  Massachusetts  Gazette  and  Boston  News  Letter,  Nov.  28,  1765,  gives  an  account 
of  the  meeting  of  delegates  from  the  towns  at  Windham,  Nov.  11.  Among  the 
delegates  was  the  Rev.  Ebenezer  Devotion.  For  New  London  Resolves  see  issue 
of  Dec.  19,  1765.  They  repeat  the  constitutional  arguments  of  Johnson  and  others, 
declaring  that,  when  the  lawful  bounds  of  authority  are  exceeded,  the  people  have 
the   right  to   reassume   their   natural   authority. 

67  For   Lyme  resolves  see  Appendix. 


104         The  Nezu  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

and  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  they  are  not,  then  they 
served  to  spread  and  to  intensify  a  spirit  of  resistance  among 
the  people  and  to  convince  them  that  such  resistance  was  but 
a  carrying  out  of  the  ideals  and  practices  of  their  ancestors. 
Every  villager  who  attended  church  on  the  Sabbath  day  could 
talk  learnedly  of  the  reasons  for  refusing  to  pay  the  tax. 
Usually  taxation  at  any  time  would  have  been  displeasing  to 
the  colonists  and  above  all  just  after  the  French  and  Indian 
war,  but  to  have  their  displeasure  at  the  tax  and  their  resent- 
ment at  other  restrictions  of  their  freedom  approved  by  their 
ministers  and  based  on  constitutional  and  religious  grounds 
must  have  given  added  force  and  determination  to  their  mood. 
There  was  nothing  new  in  these  sermons.  There  was  a  greater 
emphasis  on  the  contractual  character  of  the  charters  and  on 
trial  by  jury  as  a  natural  right,  but  they  were  the  age-old 
arguments  presented  with  greater  particularity  and  vividness.68 

68  J.  T.  Adams  in  Revolutionary  New  England,  pp.  312,  332,  440-43,  says  that 
the  general  use  of  the  "natural  rights"  argument  was  not  common  during  the  early 
years  of  the  Revolution,  but  that  the  colonists  were  forced  back  to  it  as  other  argu- 
ments failed;  that  Samuel  Adams  was  somewhat  ahead  of  colonial  thought  in  general 
in  asserting  "that  the  essential  rights  of  the  British  constitution  are  founded  in  the 
law  of  God  and  nature,  and  are  the  common  rights  of  mankind",  and  that  the 
colonists  therefore  were  also  inalienably  entitled  to  the  same  rights,  etc.  These 
were  precisely  the  arguments  advanced  by  many  of  the  clergy  not  only  long  be- 
fore 1765  but  during  that  and  all  the  following  years.  It  seems  to  have  been  a 
fairly  general  argument  at  this  time,  in  New  England  at  least,  although  not  so  fre- 
quently used  by  the  lay  pamphleteers.    For   further  illustrations,   see  Appendix. 


Chapter  VIII 

KEEPING  ALIVE  THE  FLAME :  1766-1774 

In  attempting  to  determine  the  influence  of  the  clergy  in  the 
years  preceding  the  outbreak  of  war,  it  is  difficult  to  decide 
how  far  they  were  actually  leaders,  making  and  controlling 
public  opinion  and  action,  and  how  far  they  were  merely 
borne  on  the  tide  of  public  excitement  or  even  forced  to  play  a 
part  against  their  open  or  secret  inclination.  This  is  especially 
difficult  to  determine  for  the  majority  of  the  dissenting  clergy 
in  the  years  between  1770  and  1774,  although  there  are  some, 
at  least,  about  whom  there  is  no  uncertainty.  It  would  seem 
natural  that  many  should  have  joined  with  the  conservatives  who 
began  to  fear  the  increasing  power  of  the  populace,  because 
the  ministry  is  usually  considered  a  conservative  profession. 
But  the  truth  seems  to  be  that,  whether  because  of  a  dependence 
upon  the  majority  in  a  town  for  their  salary,  or  because  of  a 
fear  that  English  success  might  endanger  their  power  and 
position,  or  because  of  a  conviction  of  the  justice  of  the  cause 
and  an  active  sympathy  for  the  people,  the  great  majority 
joined  the  popular  side,  and  some  were  among  its  leaders.  They 
believed  indeed  that  they  were  but  supporting  the  traditions  of 
the  past,  that  they  were,  in  fact,  the  true  conservatives.  At  the 
same  time  there  were  signs  of  a  growing  impatience  with  too 
great  wealth  and  a  growing  faith  in  real  democracy  and  freedom 
of  action  and  spirit. 

The  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act  seemed,  for  a  time  at  least, 
to  quiet  the  fears  of  most  of  the  clergy,  as  well  as  of  the 
people.1  The  ministers  did  not,  however,  cease  to  preach  the 
familiar  political  doctrines,  although  there  was  less  excitement 
in  their  sermons.  The  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut  election 
sermons  of  1767,  1768,  and  1769,  as  was  usual,  dealt  with 
principles  of  government.  They  emphasized  again  the  original 
equality  and  freedom  of  men  in  the  state  of  nature,  the  inalien- 

1J.  T.  Adams,  Revolutionary  New  England,  pp.  342-43.  It  was,  however,  in  1766 
that  the  consociated  churches  of  Connecticut  united  with  the  Synod  of  Philadel- 
phia and  New  York  and  discussed  the  threat  of  Episcopacy.  Bridges,  in  his  Mass- 
achusetts Election  Sermon  of  1767,  says:  "Such  convulsions  there  have  been,  as 
have  shaken  the  very  foundations  of  government,  but  .  .  .  things  have  been  in  a 
good  measure  appeased"    (p.   46). 

[105] 


106         The  Nezv  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

able  rights  which  were  superior  to  all  authority,  the  formation 
of  society  and  government  by  compact,  and  the  good  of  society 
as  the  end  of  all  government.  The  discussions  of  a  constitution 
by  Bridges  and  Shute  were  especially  definite  and  interesting.2 

All  of  these  men  praised  the  British  constitution  which  pro- 
tected their  rights,  but  Haven  and,  somewhat  more  forcibly, 
Salter  and  Williams  considered  the  late  acts  of  Parliament 
dangerous  and  threatening.  Haven  said  that  the  colonists  were 
loyal  to  the  King  and  ready  to  obey  Parliament  in  the  exercise 
of  due  authority,  but  that  certain  acts  of  Parliament  made  it 
impossible  for  the  people  to  enjoy  their  important  rights  and 
privileges.  In  this  sermon,  which  was  widely  read  and  which 
met  with  special  notice  in  England,  Haven  spoke  of  the  fall 
of  Charles  I  and  of  Andros,  of  the  right  of  Massachusetts  to 
elect  its  council,  a  right  which  he  hoped  might  continue  to  the 
end  of  time,  quoted  Locke  on  the  right  of  resistance  to  every 
encroachment  upon  natural  and  constitutional  rights,  and  as- 
serted the  right  of  the  people  to  call  those  in  authority  to 
account  and  take  away  their  power  when  abused.3 

Richard  Salter,  of  Connecticut,  who  praised  the  "ingenious, 
generous,  sensible,  spirited,  and  loyal  Farmer",4  spoke  in  1768 
with  picturesque  directness  of  the  danger  from  rulers  who 
were  "weak  headed,  short  sighted,  muddy  brained  men",  of  the 
people's  concern  over  the  Declaratory  Act,  and  of  the  Town- 
shend  Acts  which  threatened  calamity  "which  can  scarce  be 
painted   in  too   horrible   and  gloomy  colors."5    Both   he   and 

2  Sermon  of  1767  by  Ebenezer  Bridges,  of  Chelmsford;  of  1768  by  Daniel  Shute, 
of  Hingham;  of  1769  by  Jason  Haven,  of  Dedham.  In  Connecticut,  the  sermon 
of  1767  was  by  Ed.  Eells,  of  Middleton;  1768,  Richard  Salter,  of  Mansfield;  1769, 
Eliphalet  Williams,  of  Hartford.  Shute,  pp.  22-24,  says  that  the  right  to  govern 
is  a  right  delegated  by  the  whole.  The  right  to  choose  rulers  is  inalienable.  "A 
compact  for  civil  government  in  any  community  implies  the  stipulation  of  certain 
rules  of  government.  These  rules  or  laws  more  properly  make  the  civil  constitu- 
tion." The  laws  prescribing  rights  of  prerogative  and  of  people  should  be  founded 
on  principles  promoting  the  good  of  society  and  be  held  sacred  by  both.  They  ought, 
therefore,  to  be  as  plain  as  possible.  "Mysteries  in  civil  government  relative  to 
the  rights  of  the  people,  like  mysteries  in  the  laws  of  religion,  may  be  pretended, 
and  to  the  like  purposes  of  slavery,  this  of  the  souls,  and  that  of  the  bodies  of 
men."  People  are  bound  to  support  those  having  delegated  authority  so  long  as 
the  laws  made  answer  the  end  for  which  officials  were  chosen,  otherwise  they  are 
morally   bound   to   resist. 

3  Haven,  pp.  6,  7,  9-11,  17,  26,  34,  37-43,  46-48.  Boston  News  Letter,  Nov. 
23,  1769,  quotes  London  comment  and  speaks  of  the  sermon  as  being  in  the  hands 
of  many  people   in   Mass.   Cf.   Hollis   Papers,   no.    161. 

4  Salter,  p.  39. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  32.  See  also  Judah  Champion,  Two  Fast  Day  Sermons,  1770,  p.  29, 
who  says  that  the  acts  are  unconstitutional  and  have  caused  general  uneasiness, 
and  that  he  hopes  for  their  total  repeal. 


Keeping  Alive  the  Flame:  1766-1774  107 

Williams  in  1769  urged  the  Assembly  to  exert  itself  in  defense 
of  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  people  against  the  least 
encroachment  upon  the  "rights  founded  in  the  law  of  nature, 
which  is  the  law  of  God,  eternal  and  immutable."6 

It  was  not  only  in  election  sermons  that  the  ministers  between 
1766  and  1770  encouraged  resistance  to  unconstitutional  power. 
The  annual  artillery  sermons  and  those  preached  at  the  musters 
were  another  means  of  reaching  the  people  which  seems  to  have 
been  used  to  the  full,  both  then  and  later.  They  gave  occasion 
to  laud  the  early  colonists  and  especially  to  justify  war  in 
defense  of  natural  and  constitutional  rights,  even  to  declaring 
it,  as  the  clergy  have  done  since  time  immemorial,  in  harmony 
with  the  divine  law.7 

Sermons  were  also  preached  and  printed  for  the  especial 
purpose  of  familiarizing  men  with  the  heroic  deeds  of  their 
ancestors  and  of  inspiring  a  love  for  the  rights  and  liberties 
for  which  their  ancestors  fought.  Some  of  the  ministers  felt 
this  their  peculiar  duty  since  they  believed  the  people  knew 
little  of  the  past.  Judah  Champion,  of  Litchfield,  for  instance, 
published  two  discourses  in  1770  for  this  purpose.  "The  few 
histories,"  he  said,  "of  the  settling  of  New  England  now  extant, 
are  very  scarce  among  the  people  in  general,  and  the  rising 
generation  in  particular,  are  very  much  unacquainted  with  the 
distresses  their  ancestors  encounter'd,  whose  zeal  and  virtue 
should  not  be  forgotten."8 

Among  such  sermons  were  two  which  attracted  much  atten- 
tion. They  were  discourses  on  religious  liberty  by  Amos  Adams, 
of  Roxbury,  who  was  the  son-in-law  of  Charles  Chauncey 
and  therefore  doubtless  especially  interested  in  the  supposed 
danger  of  an  American  Episcopate  which  so  agitated  Chauncey 
and  was  at  its  height  about  1768.  Adams'  sermons  were  read 

a  Williams,   p.   42.   See  also   pp.    11,   34-35,  and   Salter,   pp.    30-34. 

'  Shute,  Artillery  Sermon,  1767,  p.  27:  "this  kind  of  war  is  supported  by  the 
written  revelation  which  God  has  been  pleased  to  give  mankind  .  .  .  Defensive 
war  is  then  right,  according  to  the  constitution  of  God."  See  pp.  11,  19,  25.  Also 
Jonas  Clarke,  Artillery  Sermon,  June  6,  1768.  That  the  sermons  of  the  day  met 
with  notice  in  America  and  abroad  is  proved  by  the  newspapers  and  correspon- 
dence. For  example,  Boston  Chronicle,  Dec.  5,  1768,  quotes  note  from  London 
that  a  sermon,  "rather  too  warm  on  the  side  of  liberty",  had  lately  been  burned 
at  order  of  one  of  the  governors  in  America.  For  mention  of  other  patriotic  ser- 
mons during  1767-1769,  see  Boston  Chronicle,  Oct.  24,  1768,  July  6,  1769;  Boston 
News  Letter,  Mar.  17,  1768,  Dec.  7,  1769.  See  Headley,  p.  59,  on  sermons  at 
musters. 

8  Champion,  Two   Fast  Day   Sermons,   Preface. 


108         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

by  many  in  America  and  were  published  in  London  in  1770. 
They  were  sent  by  Eliot  to  Thomas  Hollis,  and  Hollis  con- 
sidered then  "among  the  best  publications  produced  by  North 
America".9 

Adams  most  certainly  believed  that  real  religious  freedom, 
the  natural  and  inalienable  freedom  of  conscience,  was  the 
precious  possession  of  New  England  and  especially  of  Massa- 
chusetts, and  that  it  was  lacking  in  England.  Again  and  again 
he  gloried  in  American  liberty.  "Here  we  dwell  in  a  land  of 
light,  a  region  of  liberty  .  .  .  religious  liberty  is  one  of  the 
most  precious  jewels  on  earth  ...  a  darling  privilege  which 
we  cannot  be  too  willing  to  give  up.  .  .  Our  liberties,  both 
civil  and  sacred,  are  truly  our  own ; — they  are  what  our 
fathers  dearly  bought ;  they  descend  to  us  as  a  patrimony  pur- 
chased at  their  expense."10  It  is  hard  to  reconcile  such  enthusi- 
asm with  the  conception  we  hold  to-day  of  the  intolerance  of 
Revolutionary  New  England.  But  Adams  and  many  of  his 
contemporaries  believed  that  religious  liberty  could  go  hand 
in  hand  with  taxation  for  the  minister's  support  and  with 
various  other  restrictive  laws.  There  were  also  radical  ministers 
in  Massachusetts  who  preached  a  freedom  far  wider  than  the 
general  practice  of  the  day.  There  was  an  increasing  interest 
in  the  subject,  both  among  Baptists  and  Congregationalists. 
It  is  probable,  however,  that  a  fair  number  of  such  sermons 
and  pamphlets  were  intended  as  propaganda  to  quiet  the 
critics  at  home  and  abroad  and  to  strengthen  the  position  of 

9  "He  and  such  like  Men  cannot  be  too  much  encouraged",  (Hollis  Papers,  Nos. 
140,  154).  Cf.  also  Amos  Adams,  Religious  &  colonial  Libe-rty.  Two  Discourses, 
Dec.  1767,  p.  SO.  These  give  a  full  account  of  English  and  colonial  struggle  for 
liberty.  There  were  many  such  sermons,  and  for  this  definite  purpose,  later.  See 
Boston  News  Letter,  Dec.  2,  1768,  Feb.   15,  1770. 

10  Adams,  pp.  32,  39,  53.  The  discourses  are  full  of  such  phrases.  Illustrations 
could  be  multiplied.  John  Tucker  in  his  Convention  Sermon  of  1768  discussed  at 
length  the  "divine  constitution"  and  Christian  liberty.  "Every  subject  of  this 
kingdom,  i.  e.,  every  Christian,  has  and  must  have  a  right  to  judge  for  himself 
of  the  true  sense  and  meaning  of  all  gospel  truths,  and  that  no  doctrine  there- 
fore;— no  laws; — no  religious  rites;  no  terms  of  acceptance  with  God,  or  of  admis- 
sion to  Christian  privileges,  not  found  in  the  gospel,  are  to  be  looked  upon  by 
him,  as  any  part  of  this  divine  system."  Ministers  are  to  explain  truths  to  peo- 
ple, but  leave  them  free  to  make  their  own  deductions  and  to  receive  as  truth 
only  what  they  see  to  be  founded  in  God's  word  (pp.  15-18).  Tucker  discouraged 
politics  in  the  pulpit.  In  1769  Rev.  John  Lathrop  of  Boston  wrote  to  Rev.  Eben- 
ezer  Baldwin  of  Connecticut  that  he  had  heard  that  Massachusetts  ministers  had 
decided  to  do  away  with  all  creeds  and  confessions.  Lathrop  answered  that  they 
had  been  pretty  generally  laid  aside,  that  a  movement  by  Sewall  and  Pemberton 
to  examine  candidates  as  in  Connecticut  was  voted  down  by  a  large  majority. 
Cf.   Sprague,  VIII.   71. 


Keeping  Alive  the  Flame:  1766-1774  109 

the  government.  There  is  hardly  a  Massachusetts  sermon  of 
these  days  which  does  not  mention  liberty,  yet  there  were 
clergymen  in  Massachusetts  who  had,  as  it  seemed  to  them, 
personal  experience  of  its  absence  and  who  therefore  preached 
it  with  special  earnestness.  Beginning  about  1764,  there  was  a 
large  increase  in  the  numbers  of  Baptists  and  a  great  improve- 
ment in  the  intelligence  and  education  of  the  Baptist  ministry. 
They  soon  came  into  conflict  with  the  laws  requiring  payment 
of  rates  to  the  Congregational  minister  of  the  town  unless  they 
had  the  witness  of  a  certain  number  of  Baptist  ministers  that 
they  were  bona  fide  Baptists.11  The  significant  features  of 
their  articles,  pamphlets,  and  petitions  against  this  law  are 
the  arguments  used  and  the  growing  belief  in  entire  separa- 
tion of  church  and  state. 

The  leaders  of  the  movement  were  Isaac  Backus,  of  Middle- 
town,  Massachusetts,  Hezekiah  Smith,  of  Haverhill,  Massa- 
chusetts, Samuel  Stillman,  of  Boston,  "the  little  man  elo- 
quent", and  James  Manning,  of  Providence.  In  their  writings 
they  quoted  Locke  and  applied  to  their  own  situation  the  very 
same  arguments  used  against  the  unpopular  acts  of  Parliament. 
Very  clearly  they  drew  the  parallel  between  their  own  relation 
to  the  colonial  government  and  that  of  the  colonies  as  a  whole 
to  England.12  In  1773  they  refused  longer  to  meet  the  require- 
ments of  the  provincial  law  and  became,  as  time  went  on, 
increasingly  and  embarrassingly  vocal  in  their  protests. 

In  1770  a  committee  of  grievances  had  been  formed  by  the 
Warren  Association  of  Baptists,  and  Smith  was  appointed  as 
agent  to  London.  This  was  the  cause  of  much  discussion  in 
newspapers  and  letters,  the  Congregationalists  asserting  vigor- 
ously that  full  legal  protection  was  given  to  religious  liberty 
and  the  Baptists  giving  instances  of  oppression.13  By  some  the 

JS  Guild,    Chaplain   Smith,   pp.    79,   84,    88. 

12  See  Minutes  of  the  Warren  Association,  1769-1862;  Backus,  Works,  I.  II. 
1754-1787.  Backus  in  An  appeal  to  the  Public  for  Religious  Liberty,  written  in 
1773,  pp.  3-11,  seems  not  to  accept  the  common  idea  that  certain  rights  were 
given  up  when  government  was  established.  He  says  that  the  Bible  clearly  shows 
that  man  first  lost  his  liberty  by  breaking  the  rules  of  government  and  that  only  by 
government  can  man  secure  any  liberty  at  all.  He  is  referring  apparently  to  those 
who  praise  liberty  and  despise  government,  thinking  liberty  means  that  each 
shall  act  as  he  pleases.  He  says  that  certain  of  their  opponents  were  trying  to 
make  it  seem  that  Baptists  were  claiming  to  be  in  a  state  of  nature.  This  he 
denies  and  says  they  base  their  claims  on  their  rights  as  men,  as  Christians,  as 
subjects    of   a    free    government,   and    on    their    charters    (p.    36,    note). 

1Z  Boston  News  Letter,  Sept.  20,  1770;  also  Aug.  2,  1770  ff.  This  controversy 
ran  through   several  years. 


110         The  Nezu  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

trouble  was  attributed  to  the  Episcopalians.  Because  the  Bap- 
tists would  not  join  with  Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists 
in  opposing  an  Episcopate,  they  were  accused  of  being  un- 
willing to  aid  in  upholding  American  liberty.14  They  were 
also  accused  by  some  of  the  Massachusetts  ministers  of  exag- 
gerated and  inaccurate  statements  and  of  using  the  situation 
unfairly  to  gain  their  ends.  Religious  toleration  did  not  seem 
to  many  Congregationalists  and  Presbyterians  to  demand  that 
subscription  to  a  minister's  salary  should  be  voluntary,  and  many 
of  the  petitions  seemed  to  them  and  to  the  General  Court  to  be 
only  an  attempt  to  break  a  sacred  covenant  and  escape  the 
payment  of  any  kind  of  ministerial  tax.15 

Whatever  the  truth  may  have  been,  this  difficulty  focussed 
attention  on  the  whole  question  of  religious  liberty  and  gave 
one  more  occasion  to  apply  the  old  arguments.  It  may  well 
have  been  one  cause  of  the  increasing  emphasis  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  religious  liberty  in  the  New  England  sermons.  However 
lacking  this  freedom  may  have  been  in  New  England,  even  the 
Baptists  agreed  that  there  was  more  of  it  there  than  in  the 
mother  country,  and  were  ready  to  support  the  colonies  in  their 
contest  with  England. 

14  See  Eliot,  Letters,  nos.  101,  104  (M.H.S.).  In  1770  Ezra  Stiles  wrote  that 
north  of  Maryland  only  the  Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists  were  left  to 
defend  civil  and  religious  liberty,  that  if  the  other  sects  took  any  part  in  the 
struggle  it  would  be  on  the  other  side.  Cf.  Hollis  Papers,  nos.  173,  178  (M.H.S.). 
The  Rev.  Andrew  Eliot  wrote  to  Hollis  that  the  sudden  attack  of  the  Baptists 
was  a  surprise,  that  he  had  not  heard  that  the  laws  of  Massachusetts  were  not 
satisfactory,  and  that  the  oppression  must  have  been  local  and  accidental.  Evi- 
dently he  did  not  wish  Hollis  to  think  New  England  intolerant.  He  said  that  he 
and  other  ministers  had  spoken  to  Cushing,  Adams,  and  other  members  of  the 
Assembly  who  had  promised  to  alter  the  laws  so  as  to  give  all  reasonable  satis- 
faction, but  that  even  then  the  Baptists  had  chosen  an  agent  to  the  King.  In 
consequence  the  Sons  of  Liberty  in  Boston  were  roused  against  the  Baptists  and 
even  many  of  the  Baptists  themselves  in  Boston  were  displeased.  J.  T.  Adams, 
Revolutionary  New  England,  pp.  359  ff.,  suggests  that  Samuel  Adams  may  have 
fostered  the  scheme  of  appealing  to  the  King  in  order  to  rouse  the  clergy.  For 
the    Baptist   position,   see   Hovey's   Life  of  Backus. 

15  Bradford,  History  of  Massachusetts,  I,  411.  See  Eccles.  Papers;  Letters  and 
Papers,  1761-76,  no.  101  (M.  H.  S.) ;  and  Hovey's  Life  of  Backus.  In  another 
interesting  controversy  over  church  government  which  brought  out  analogies  be- 
tween ecclesiastical  and  political  thinking,  Wise's  two  pamphlets  of  1713  and 
1717  were  republished  and  1000  copies  of  the  2nd  edition  were  sold  before  publi- 
cation. See  Dexter,  Congregationalism  as  Seen  in  its  Literature,  pp.  501-02; 
Chaplin,  A  Treatise  on  Church  Government;  A  Second  Treatise  on  Church. 
Government,  1773;  Whitaker,  A  Confutation  of  Two  Tracts,  1773;  a  pamphlet 
called  Observations  upon  the  Congregational  Plan  of  Church  Government ;  Israel 
Holly,  Sermon,  at  Suffield,  1773;  and  the  Boston  News  Letter,  1773-7 '4;  Essex 
Gazette,  Jan.  29,  1771;  Ms.  Letters  nos.  773129.1,  773660,  774468.1,  774618.1  in 
Dartmouth  College. 


Keeping  Alive  the  Flame:  1766-1774  111 

Yet  another  method  by  which  the  ministers  promoted  op- 
position to  England  in  these  years,  as  well  as  later,  was  through 
their  association  with  the  young  men  in  the  colleges.  As  teachers 
they  inculcated  the  principles  of  government  and  permitted 
debates  on  questions  which  must  have  caused  disturbance  in 
Loyalist  hearts.  For  example,  in  the  new  Brown  University, 
the  students  debated  in  1769  whether  it  were  good  policy  for 
the  Americans  under  present  conditions  to  establish  an  inde- 
pendent state.16  Andrew  Eliot,  a  somewhat  conservative  man 
though  constantly  friendly  to  the  American  cause,  said  in  1769 
that  the  Harvard  students  had  imbibed  the  spirit  of  the  times 
and  that  their  declamations  and  debates  were  full  of  the  spirit 
of  liberty.  This,  he  said,  had  been  encouraged,  even  if  some 
times  it  got  out  of  bounds,  because  their  tutors  were  afraid  to 
check  too  decidedly  a  spirit  which  might  thereafter  fill  the 
country  with  patriots.17 

Individual  clergymen,  during  these  years,  were  often  of 
great  service  to  the  American  cause  through  their  English 
correspondence.  Such  a  one  was  Andrew  Eliot,  of  Boston,  who 
had  become  the  successor  of  Mayhew  in  the  confidence  and 
affection  of  Thomas  Hollis,  of  London.  By  constant  inter- 
change of  books  and  pamphlets  which  were  given  by  them  to 
others,  the  Americans  learned  of  English  sentiment  and  sym- 
pathizers in  England  were  kept  in  touch  with  America.  From 
letters  between  them  it  appears  that  Hollis  was  vehement  and 
persistent  in  advising  first  Mayhew  and  then  Eliot  to  get 
control  of  the  press  as  far  as  possible  and  that  it  was  through 
his  advice  that  Eliot  and  others  made  arrangements  for  the 
regular  receipt  in  London  of  American  news  and  articles.18 

10  Guild,    Manning   and  Brown    University.,   pp.    77,   90. 

17  Hollis  Papers,  no.  166.  See  Boston  News  Letter,  July  25,  1766,  Jan.  7, 
1768,  Jan.  14,  1768,  July  21,  1768,  Oct.  27,  1768,  July  20,  1769,  Sept.  7,  1769, 
July  19,  1770,  Sept.  13,  1770,  Boston  Chronicle,  Nov.  14,  1768.  Daggett  and 
Stiles  and  others  made  Yale  "a  seminary  of  sedition,  faction  and  republicanism." 
Cf.  Dexter,  "Notes  on  Some  of  the  New  Haven  Loyalists,"  in  New  Haven  Colony 
Hist.  Soc.   Papers,  IX.   44. 

18  Hollis  Papers,  nos.  158,  163,  165-73.  There  are  many  letters  to  this  effect;  see 
also  Chap.  I.  On  Nov.  14,  1766,  Eliot  wrote:  "I  entirely  agree  with  you,  that  an 
interest  in  the  public  prints  is  of  great  importance.  The  Spirit  of  Liberty  would 
soon  be  lost  &  the  people  would  grow  quite  lethargic,  if  there  were  not  some  on 
the  watch,  to  awaken  and  rouse  them."  In  1767  Hollis  suggested,  through  Eliot, 
to  all  patriots,  holding  up  to  public  shame  in  the  press  "all  such  Scrubs,  civil 
or  religious,  as  shall  flagrantly  offend  against  Truth  &  Liberty  of  any  Kind, 
on  either  side  of  the  Water."  In  1767  Eliot  wrote  that  the  "G — nv — 11 -n  pam- 
phlet" sent  by  Hollis  was  the  only  one  sent  from  London;   was  in  such   great  de- 


112         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

In  March  1770  occurred  the  Boston  Massacre,  which  greatly 
excited  the  populace.  It  roused  certain  of  the  clergy,  also,  not- 
ably the  young  Rev.  John  Lathrop  of  the  Old  North  Church. 
He  had  studied  at  Princeton  under  the  presidency  of  that  great 
lover  of  human  liberty,  Samuel  Davies,  and  was  an  ardent 
patriot,  sharing  from  his  installation  in  1768  in  all  the  Revolu- 
tionary activities.  He  preached  the  Sunday  after  the  massacre 
a  sermon  on  the  text,  "The  voice  of  thy  brother's  blood  cryeth 
unto  me  from  the  ground."19  This  was  shortly  published  in 
Boston  and  London  and  was  reprinted  in  1771.  London  papers 
quoted  from  its  preface  Lathrop's  conception  of  the  purpose 
of  government  as  the  general  good  and  his  belief  that  a  govern- 
ment which  failed  of  its  purpose  should  be  abolished  and  a 
better  one  established,  whatever  the  fate  of  the  wicked  men 
who  were  attempting  to  subvert  the  rights  of  the  people.  They 
noted  especially  that  he  thought  his  sentiments  were  entertained 
by  all  who  upheld  the  "glorious  Revolution"  and  the  Han- 
overian succession.  Lathrop,  so  said  the  London  notice,  urged 
the  American  clergy  to  assert  their  sentiments  on  all  proper 
occasions.  Some  few  Bostonians,  he  admitted,  had  been  dis- 
pleased by  the  notice  taken  by  the  ministers  of  the  recent  dis- 

mand  that  after  certain  friends  had  seen  it,  it  seemed  best  to  have  it  printed;  it  was 
sure  to  occasion  much  political  altercation.  In  1769  he  wrote  that  without  matter 
sent  by  Hollis  they  would  be  quite  ignorant  of  what  was  said  against  them  in 
England.  Eliot  distributed  this  material  among  those  who  could  make  best  use 
of  it  and  inserted  in  papers  extracts  from  English  papers  sent  him  by  Hollis.  But 
Hollis  advised,  rather,  having  Almon  and  Kearsley  send  them  all  the  political 
publications  as  they  appeared.  Eliot  had  an  arrangement  made  with  Kearsley  to 
do  so  and  also  to  have  the  best  American  publications  printed  in  London. 
In  1770  Eliot  wrote  that  he  had  often  been  surprised  that  no  care  had  been  taken 
to  know  what  was  said  for  and  against  them  in  Great  Britain.  "Few  of  our  Mer- 
chants are  Readers  and  others  are  out  of  the  way  of  procuring.  Our  accounts  of 
things  are  chiefly  by  private  correspondences  .  .  .  The  popular  Side  have  depended 
chiefly  on  Governor  Pownal,  Mr.  Bollan  and  Mr.  de  Berdt."  He  regarded  the 
first  as  a  thorough  politician,  the  second  as  a  man  of  learning  and  integrity,  the  third 
as  one  who  did  what  he  could  but  likely  to  be  deceived.  But  he  had  passed  on  Hollis' 
hint  and   several   had  made   arrangements   to    have    London   prints    sent   to   them. 

Eliot  was  a  friend  and  correspondent  of  many  clergymen  and  laymen.  At  first 
he  thought  some  of  the  American  measures  too  rash,  but  by  1769  he  had  become 
convinced  that  vigorous  opposition  had  been  necessary.  He  began  then  to  talk  of 
independence.  "The  treatment  of  the  Colonies  .  .  .  tends  greatly  ...  to  hasten 
that  independency  which  at  present  the  warmest  among  us  deprecate — things  will 
not  be  settled  until  we  have  an  American  Bill  of  Rights." 

Samuel  Cooper  also  was  in  constant  correspondence  with  ex-Gov'r.  Pownall 
and  others.  In  1769,  he  used  the  term,  "the  great  American  cause,"  a  phrase 
which  he  used  later  also.  "Letters  to  Pownall,"  Amer.  Hist.  Rev.,  VIII,  pp.  309, 
313.  Cooper  said  he  was  ashamed  of  the  neglect  of  the  Selectmen  in  not  writing, 
but  that  writing  was  not  their  talent. 

19  Innocent  Blood  Crying  to  God  From  the  Streets  of  Boston.  Boston,  1770. 
Account  given  to  Pownall  by  Samuel  Cooper,  Letters,  A.  H.  R.,  VIII.  316-18. 


Keeping  Alive  the  Flame:  1766-1774  113 

turbances  in  the  town,  but  who  could  expect  "the  heralds  of  the 
Almighty  whose  Commission  obliges  them  to  cry  aloud,  and 
not  to  spare,"  to  be  silent  "when  the  blood  of  the  people  of 
their  charge  is  spilled  as  water,  and  their  carcases  strowed  in 
the  streets"20 — an  exaggeration  well  calculated  to  inflame  his 
hearers. 

Chief  Justice  Oliver  was  especially  bitter  against  the  clergy 
during  these  days.  Before  the  trials  of  the  men  concerned  in 
the  Boston  Massacre,  he  said :  the  "Pulpits  rang  their  Chimes 
upon  blood  Guiltiness,  in  Order  to  incite  the  People" ;  and 
after  the  trials  were  over  again  the  pulpits  "rang  their  Peals 
of  Malice  against  the  Courts  of  Justice."21  The  cooler  Hutchin- 
son believed  that  the  people  were  led  by  such  sermons  to  feel 
that  they  might  as  lawfully  resist  the  King's  troops  as  those 
of  a  foreign  enemy.22 

In  May  1770  two  well-known  patriots  preached  the  election 
sermons  in  Connecticut  and  Massachusetts,  Stephen  Johnson, 
of  Lyme,  and  Samuel  Cooke,  of  Arlington,  and  each  presented 
in  detail  the  old  theories,  applying  them  to  the  immediate  situa- 
tion. Cooke  in  Massachusetts  rehearsed  the  well-worn  story  of 
Charles  II,  James  II,  and  Andros.  He  declared  troops  in  time 

20  Boston  News-Letter,  June  21,  Aug.  16,  Aug.  30,  1770;  Sermon  Introduction, 
iii-iv.  Lathrop  preached  an  anniversary  sermon  in  1771  "to  a  large  Auditory", 
News-Letter,  Mar.  21,  1771;  and  several  of  his  later  sermons  were  famous.  The 
paper  notes  also  Anniversary  Sermon  by  Whitaker  of  Salem  to  very  numerous 
audiences.  A  Ballad  quoted  in  N.  Eng.  Hist,  and  Geneal.  Register,  1859,  p.  131, 
says: 

"Lathrop   so  clever,   Old  North   forever.  .   .  . 
But   when   he  treats   of   bloody   streets 

And   massacres  so  dire 
When   chous'd   of  rights  by  sinful   wights 

How  dreadful   is   his   ire." 

21  Oliver,  Origin  &  Progress  of  the  American  Rebellion,  pp.  128-30.  He  says 
they  "blew-up  the  Coals  of  Sedition."  "Prayers  &  Sermons  were  interlaced 
with  Scandal  against  the  Laws  &  the  Government;  ye  Clergy  had  forgot  the 
Errand  their  divine  Master  had  sent  them  upon,  &  had  listed  into  the  Service 
of  the  new  Masters;  &  to  them,  were  most  faithfull  servants: — in  this  Service 
they   have   continued   to   this   Day,    with   Fidelity   irreproachable." 

22  In  June,  1770,  Hutchinson  wrote  to  John  Pownall:  "It  is  certain  that  the 
present  leaders  of  the  people  of  Boston  wish  for  a  general  convulsion,  not  only  by 
harangues,  but  by  the  prayers  and  preaching  of  many  of  the  clergy  under  their 
influence,  inflame  the  minds  of  the  people,  and  instil  principles  repugnant  to  the 
fundamental  principles  of  government.  At  the  Artillery  Election  Sermon,  one 
minister  in  his  prayers  deplored  the  tragedy,  etc.,  then  prayed  'that  the  people 
might  have  a  martial  spirit,  that  they  might  be  instructed  and  expert  in  military 
discipline,  and  able  to  defend  themselves  against  their  proud  oppressors,  and  the 
men  whose  feet  are  swift  to  shed  innocent  blood.'  Our  pulpits  are  tilled  with  such 
dark  covered  expressions  and  the  people  are  led  to  think  they  may  as  lawfully 
resist  the  King's  troops  as  any  foreign  enemy  .  .  .  ."  Massachusetts  Spy,  Aug.  9, 
1775,  quotes  letter  of  June  8,  1770. 


114         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

of  peace  a  most  "improper  safeguard,  to  a  constitution,  which 
has  liberty — British  Liberty,  for  its  basis."23  He  stressed  also 
the  danger  of  making  the  Council  dependent  on  the  Governor.24 

Cooke's  sermon  is  especially  interesting  to  one  who  is  fol- 
lowing the  development  of  the  American  written  constitution. 
At  great  length  he  discussed  the  origin  of  government,  the 
natural  equality  of  men,  and  the  power  of  the  people  as  a 
collective  body.  Their  safety,  he  said,  depended  upon  the 
establishment  of  definite  rules  or  laws  to  which  individuals 
and  each  part  of  the  government  were  to  be  subject.25  Since 
the  whole  community  controlled  their  execution,  the  community 
therefore  determined  its  own  rights.  Only  the  people  as  a 
collective  body  had  a  right  under  God  to  choose  and  to  limit 
those  in  authority  who  were  therefore  strictly  responsible.  A 
balanced  government,  carefully  confined  and  watched,  was, 
he  believed,  the  best  type.  Unless  the  constitution  were  main- 
tained in  its  entirety  a  free  state  at  once  ceased  to  be  free.  Its 
benefits  must  extend  to  every  branch  and  to  every  individual 
of  whatever  degree — thus  every  man  might  enjoy  his  property 
in  quiet  security.26 

About  this  time  the  papers  began  to  be  filled  with  discussions 
concerning  the  activity  of  the  ministers  in  politics,  especially 
their  attitude  toward  the  new  governor,  Thomas  Hutchinson. 
As  early  as  January  1771  there  appeared  in  the  Essex  Gazette 
the  first  of  many  articles  signed  "Johannis  in  Eremo".  This 
thin  mask  hid  the  Reverend  John  Cleaveland,  of  Ipswich,  who 
in  his  youthful  days  had  been  denied  a  Yale  degree  because  of 
his  interest  in  the  radical  "New  Lights",  and  in  later  years 
had  attacked  the  theology  of  Mayhew  and  now  unsheathed  his 
sword  against  Hutchinson  and  England.  A  "meer  tool",  he 
called  Hutchinson,  and  characterized  his  administration  as  tend- 
ing to  deprive  the  colonists  of  all  their  most  important  rights.27 
He  inveighed  against  the  removal  of  the  General  Court  to  Cam- 

23  Cooke,   p.    18. 

24  Ibid,  p.  37:  "If  this  were  done,  Liberty  here  will  cease.  This  day  of  the 
gladness  of  our  hearts,  will  be  turned  into  the  deepest  sorrow." 

26  Ibid.,  pp.  6-7,  13-14. 

20  Ibid.,  pp.  9-10,  13-15,  17,  18-19,  30.  Cooke  was  intimately  associated  with  that 
great  theorist  on  government,  Jonas  Clark,  of  Lexington,  and  was  the  friend  of 
many  Revolutionary  leaders.  Sermons  of  the  time  glow  with  the  spirit  of 
resistance.  Cf.  Loring,  Hundred  Boston  Orators,  p.  125;  C.  S.  Parker,  Town  of 
Arlington,  pp.  51,   107,   190-91. 

z*  Essex  Gazette,  Jan.   8,   1771. 


Keeping  Alive  the  Flame:  1766-1774  115 

bridge  and  in  his  second  article  exclaimed :  "Could  a  Hills- 
borough himself  desire,  or  even  expect  to  find  a  more  obsequious 
tool  among  all  the  tribe  of  Pensioners  !"28 

Such  an  attack  brought  forth  a  defense,  and  the  battle  was 
on.  Cleaveland  asked  the  reprinting  of  a  series  of  questions 
propounded  by  "Clericus  Americanus"  more  than  two  years 
before  and  proceeded  to  answer  his  opponents  in  two  long 
articles.29  He  talked  of  the  state  of  nature  and  natural  rights,  of 
the  formation  of  civil  states  by  voluntary  compact,  and  of  the 
purpose  of  government.  If,  he  said,  men  were  deprived  of  their 
natural  rights,  the  compact  was  violated  and  the  injured  might 
seek  protection  where  they  chose.  Applying  the  argument  to 
Massachusetts,  he  said  that  their  subjection  was  founded  on 
voluntary  compact  contained  in  the  charter,  that  both  parties 
were  bound  by  it,  and  that  a  breach  of  it  by  either  side  inevit- 
ably meant  its  entire  destruction.  If  the  charters  were  then 
seriously  violated,  the  political  connections  with  Britain  were 
entirely  dissolved  and  the  colonists  were  back  in  a  state  of 
nature.  If  this  were  true  the  American  governor  had  no  more 
authority  over  America  than  over  Holland.  Would  it  not  there- 
fore be  wise,  he  asked,  to  apply  to  the  King  for  a  renewal  of 
the  compact  that  they  might  not  be  forced  against  their  will 
to  apply  to  some  other  state  for  protection  ? 

Much  the  same  idea  was  expressed  in  an  article  in  the 
Boston  Gazette  of  November  9,  1772  by  a  "Mr.  Humanity", 
who  was  assumed  by  those  who  answered  him  to  be  a  minister. 
He  addressed  those  who  were  contending  for  God-given  liberty. 

28  Ibid.,  Jan.   15. 

28  Queries   in  Essex   Gazette,    Feb.   26;    Articles,    Mar.   26,   Apr.    9,    1771: 
1.     "Whether    the    Liberty    of    a    Freeman    or    an    Englishman,    which    distinguishes 
him   from   a  slave,    does   not   necessarily   imply   some   sort   of   right   and   property   of 
his  own,   which   no  man   has  or  can   have   a   right  to   without   his    consent  or  actual 
alienation  of  the  same?   .   .  . 

5.  "Whether  the  political  union  ...  to  the  British  empire  .  .  .  are  not  entirely 
founded  in  the  covenants  and  compacts  between  Great  Britain  and  these  Colonies, 
which  are  contained  in  their   Charters?" 

6.  "If  such  measures  are  taken  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  .  .  .  which  .  .  tend 
...  to  reduce  the  Colonists  into  a  state  of  Slavery;  whether  the  political  union 
.  .  .  are  not  hereby  entirely  dissolved,  and  the  Colonists  reduced  to  a  state  of 
nature?" 

8.  ...  "Whether  all  these  together  don't  necessarily  imply  an  open  infraction  and 
vacating  our  charters,  or  at  least,  a  leaping  over  all  these  covenants  and  compacts 
contained  in  them,  which  are  the  basis  of  our  political  union  to  Great  Britain?" 
Reply  to  first  two  articles  in  Massachusetts  Gazette,  also  in  News  Letter  of  Feb.  7 
and  21.  Such  language  was  called  "highly  unbecoming  to  the  Cloth."  Of.  News- 
Letter,  May   16. 


116         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

It  is  "my  firm  opinion/'  he  said,  "that  the  Americans  would  be 
justified  in  the  sight  of  Heaven  and  before  all  nations  of  man- 
kind, in  forming  an  independent  government  of  their  own, 
and  cutting  off  every  son  of  Adam  that  dared  to  oppose  them 
by  force — Great  Britain  has  robbed  them,  sent  her  armies  to 
enslave  them,  and  totally  cancelled  all  obligations  to  continue 
their  connection  with  her  another  day — I  am  however  for 
making  the  King  of  Great  Britain  the  offer  once  more,  and 
but  one,  to  renew  the  compact."  If  this  was  not  written  by  a 
clergyman,  it  is  at  least  significant  that  men  should  at  once 
conclude  that  it  must  have  been.30 

Chauncey,  Cooper,  and  other  clergymen  were  also  accused 
of  attacking  the  Governor  through  the  press  and  aroused  the 
hostility  of  the  Tories  by  so  doing.31  But  by  no  means  all  the 
Massachusetts  clergy  took  this  attitude  toward  Hutchinson. 
Many  had  read  and  frequently  quoted  his  History  and  some 
at  any  rate  were  glad  to  have  one  born  in  the  colony  chosen  as 
governor.  Congratulations  on  his  coming  into  office  were  ad- 
dressed to  him  by  the  Episcopal  and  Baptist  ministers  of 
Boston,  by  the  "Reverend  Associated  Ministers"  including  eight 
members,32  by  the  Presbyterian  church  of  which  John  More- 
head  was  pastor,  by  the  corporation  of  Harvard  College,33  by 
the  "pastors  of  the  northern  part  of  the  county  of  Hampshire" 
and  by  the  "ministers  of  the  Congregational  Churches  in  Mas- 
sachusetts in  Convention",  May  30,  1771.34  This  last  address 
was  the  occasion  of  much  bitterness.  Many,  including  Samuel 
Adams,  claimed  that  it  was  by  no  means  representative,  that 
only  a  few  were  present  at  the  convention,  and  of  those  few 

30  News-Letter,   Nov.    12,   19,   1772.   The  author   did   not  live   in   Massachusetts. 

31  Boston  News-Letter,  Aug.  8,  1771.  The  copy  in  M.  H.  S.  has  names  of  those 
referred  to  given  in  handwriting  in  margin- — Otis,  Joseph  Greenleaf,  Dr.  Young, 
and  Dr.  Chauncey.  The  writer  says  she  is  horrified  to  see  some  of  the  sacred  Order 
"pouring  out  their  low  dirty  Ribaldry,  disgraceful  even  from  the  Mouth  of  a 
Porter."  Oliver,  "Origin  &  Progress  of  the  American  Rebellion",  p.  136,  speaks  of 
press  "too  often  hovered  around  by  that  worthy  Divine,  Dr.  Cooper  &  others  of  the 
same  Cloth — from  the  Labors  of  their  Brains  would  often  issue  a  Bonfire,  a  Mob,  & 
a  tarring  &  feathering."  Essex  Gazette,  Dec.  IS,  1772,  in  an  article  signed  "A 
Bostonian"  (said  by  dishing  to  be  a  frequent  pseudonym  of  Chauncey)  reprinted 
from  the  Boston  Evening  Post,  Dec.  14,  urges  to  union  against  paid  judges,  etc. 
Boston  News-Letter,  Dec.  5,  1771,  contained  an  article  wishing  the  clergy  would  be 
more  concerned  with  morals  and  religion  and  engage  less  zealously  in  political 
matters.  Tyler,  Literary  History  of  American  Revolution,  II.  304:  "Many  of  the 
most  trenchant  articles"  in  Boston  Gazette  were  written  by  Cooper. 

32  Boston   News-Letter,    Mar.    21,   1771. 

33  Ibid.,   Mar.   28. 

34  Ibid.,    June    6. 


Keeping  Alive  the  Flame:  1766-1774  117 

not  all  voted,  and  that  it  was  an  outrageous  attempt  to  make  it 
seem  that  the  clergy  as  a  body  supported  Hutchinson.  Others 
said  that  a  larger  number  were  present  than  was  at  first  sup- 
posed and  that  it  was  as  representative  as  the  conventions 
usually  were.35  Certainly  the  desire  of  Adams  and  others  for 
the  support  of  the  ministers  and  the  frequently  expressed  dis- 
gust of  the  Loyalists  at  pulpits  filled  with  sedition  attest  the 
influence  of  the  clergy.  Had  they  not  been  really  influential, 
there  would  have  been  greater  indifference  to  their  attitude.36 
The  years  before  the  Boston  Port  Bill  saw  the  publication 
of  a  number  of  radical  sermons  and  pamphlets  by  the  ministers 
in  which  principles  of  government  and  resistance  were  again 
thoroughly  discussed.  One  of  the  most  rebellious  was  preached 
at  the  Second  Baptist  Church  of  Boston,  after  the  Gaspee  affair, 
by  the  Rev.  Isaac  Skillman,  who  the  next  year  became  the 
pastor  of  the  church.  This  pamphlet,  called  An  Oration  Upon 
the  Beauties  of  Liberty,  Or  the  Essential  Rights  of  the  Ameri- 
cans, was  dedicated  to  the  Earl  of  Dartmouth  and  went  through 
five  editions  within  two  years,  bding  published  in  Boston,  New 
London,  and  Hartford.37 

S5  Ibid.,  June  23,  July  11,  July  18;  Boston  Gazette,  July  1;  Samuel  Adams, 
Writings,  II.  174  ff. ;  also  many  articles  signed  "Candidus",  written  for  the  Boston 
Gazette.  Adams  was  angered  at  what  he  thought  the  indifference  and  caution  of 
too  many  of  the  clergy.  See  J.  Adams,   Works,  p.  374,  also  A  Ministerial  Catechise, 

1771,  p.   6. 

20  Samuel  Adams'  articles  in  the  summer  of  1771  may  have  stiffened  the  weaker 
brethren  among  the  Congregational  ministers.  Certainly  they  would  be  likely  to 
stiffen  the  determination  of  the  more  radical  parishioners  to  see  to  it  that  their 
own  ministers  played  the  patriot.  Perhaps  this  may  have  been  one  reason  why  so 
many  refused  to  read  Hutchinson's  thanksgiving  proclamation  in  November.  Of  the 
Boston  clergy  only  the  elderly  Dr.  Pemberton  and  one  young  newcomer  read  it.  There 
seem  to  have  been  more  outside  of  Boston  who  yielded,  but  the  word  went  out 
that  a  great  number  refused.  See  Boston  Gazette,  Jan.  13,  1772,  quoting  from 
Connecticut  Courant,  Dec.  24;  News-Letter,  Nov.  14,  22;  Essex  Gazette,  Nov.  12;  S. 
Adams,  Writings,  II.  27S;  Cooper's  "Letters",  A.  H.  R.,  VIII.  325-26.  Cooper  says 
that  had  the  ministers  been  inclined  to  read  it,  it  would  not  have  been  in  their 
power,  "a  circumstance  w'ch  never  [took]  Place  among  us";  also  that  through 
want  of  attention  and  consultation,  it  was  read  in  a  majority  of  country  parishes. 
For  articles  in  newspapers  and  references  in  sermons,  etc.,  to  the  influence  of  the 
clergy,  see  Boston  Gazette,  May  18,  25;  Sept.  28,  1772;  Boston  News-Letter,  May  21, 
June   4,    1772. 

37  Isaac  Skillman,  An  Oration  .  .  .  The  pamphlet  was  signed  "A  British  Bos- 
tonian"  but  copies  in  J.  C.  B.  L.  give  the  author  as  Skillman.  Evans,  IV.  394,  says 
this  may  possibly  be  ascribed  also  to  John  Allen;  Sabin,  vol.  XX,  Parts  CXV- 
CXVI,  pp.  54-56  attributes  it  to  Skillman.  The  later  edition  had  corrections  and 
additions.  In  1773  Skillman  published  The  American  Alarm,  or  the  Bostonian 
plea,  for  the  rights,  and  liberties  of  the  people.  This  Evans  and  Sabin  ascribe  first 
to  Skillman,  but  say  it  was  also  ascribed  to  Allen.  M.  H.  S.  catalogues  An  Oration 
.  .  .  under  Allen.   A   sermon   by   Allen   is  noted   in  New  London   Gazette,   Dec.    18, 

1772,  but  the  text  is  not  that  of  An  Oration. 


118         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

To  a  Loyalist,  this  must  have  seemed  rank  treason.  Like 
Cleaveland,  the  author  insisted  that  the  King  was  the  rebel,  not 
the  colonists.  King,  Commons,  nor  Lords  could  lawfully  violate 
the  rights  of  the  people,  he  said.  "For  violating  the  people's 
rights,  Charles  Stewart,  King  of  England,  lost  his  Head,  and  if 
another  King,  who  is  more  solemnly  bound  than  ever  Charles 
Stewart,  was,  should  tread  in  the  same  steps,  what  can  he 
expect?"38  If  the  King  should  become  a  tyrant,  then  the  people 
must  resume  their  delegated  authority  and  call  him  to  account. 
Such  was  the  constitution  of  England.  It  was  surely  the  King's 
ministry  and  Parliament,  said  the  author,  who  were  rebels  to 
God  and  to  mankind  in  attempting  to  overthrow  the  laws  of 
Rhode  Island.  He  argued  at  some  length  that  the  colonies 
could  not  break  the  laws  of  England,  but  their  own  laws  only. 
Therefore  they  must  be  tried  under  their  own  laws  and  in 
their  own  land.  "I  would  be  glad  to  know,  my  Lord,"  he  ex- 
claimed, "what  right  the  King  of  England  has  to  America?  it 
cannot  be  an  hereditary  right,  that  lies  in  Hanover,  it  cannot  be 
a  parliamentary  right,  that  lies  in  Britain,  not  a  victorious  right 
....  Then  he  can  have  no  more  right  to  America,  than  what 
the  people  have  by  compact,  invested  him  with,  which  is  only 
a  power  to  protect  them,  and  defend  their  rights  civil  and 
religious ;  and  to  sign,  seal,  and  confirm,  as  their  steward,  such 
laws  as  the  people  of  America  shall  consent  to."39  He  asserted 
the  right  of  the  Americans,  if  they  united  as  he  thought  there 
was  good  prospect  of  their  doing,  to  resist  any  military  or 
marine  force,  a  right  which  they  had  "by  the  law  of  God,  of 
nature  and  of  nations."40  "Where  his  Majesty  has  one  soldier, 
who  art  in  general  the  refuse  of  the  earth,  America  can  pro- 
duce fifty,  free  men,  and  all  volunteers,  and  raise  a  more  potent 
army  of  men  in  three  weeks,  than  England  can  in  three 
years."41  This  is  a  striking  example  of  the  belief  in  American 

38  Skillman,  p.  5.  See  also  pp.  6,  14-22.  Like  other  reverend  authors,  he  uses 
illustration  of  Rehoboam. 

sa  Ibid.,  p.  8.  "Does  the  King  ask  for  tall  masts?  Let  him  have  them,  but  as  a 
gift;  that  British  streets  be  paved  with  American  gold?  let  him  have  it  but  by 
way  of  trade,  not  taxation;  for  courts  of  Admiralty,  that  women  spare  their  hus- 
bands to  be  sent  confined  in  horrid  men  of  war  and  sent  back  to  tyranny?  that 
judges  be  appointed  by   King?   Never!"    (pp.   15-18). 

40  Ibid.,  p.  10.  This  author  carries  the  law  of  nature  to  extremes.  Cf .  Dedication, 
p.  3 :  "As  a  fly,  or  a  worm,  by  the  law  of  nature,  has  as  great  a  right  to  Liberty, 
and  Freedom,  (according  to  their  little  sphere  in  life,)  as  the  most  potent  monarch 
upon    earth." 

41  Ibid. 


Keeping  Alive  the  Flame:  1766-1774  119 

power  and  youthful  force  as  contrasted  with  the  decadence  of 
England  and  Europe ;  a  belief  which  was  often  expressed  at  the 
time  and  has  been  so  lasting  and  powerful  a  tradition.  Very 
skilfully  the  reverend  author  suggested  that  not  only  tea,  im- 
ports, etc.,  might  be  taxed,  did  they  not  resist,  but  lands,  cider, 
soap,  everything,  even  the  light  of  the  morning.  "Stand  up 
as  one  man  for  your  liberty,"  he  cried,  "Stand  alarm'd,  O  ye 
Americans."42 

Other  addresses,  not  so  violent  but  equally  insistent  on 
natural  and  charter  rights  and  the  legality  of  resistance,  were 
given  on  various  occasions.  The  Rev.  Charles  Turner's  Election 
Sermon  in  Massachusetts,  1773,  dwelt  long  on  the  importance 
of  a  constitution  which  should  determine  just  what  powers 
were  given  to  the  rulers  by  the  people  and  what  retained,  a 
constitution  which  must  then  be  sacredly  observed  but  which 
the  people  had  an  inalienable  right  to  alter  when  and  how 
they  would.  Protestant  ministers  of  the  gospel,  he  said,  were 
forced  to  be  friends  to  liberty.  They  could  not  properly  ex- 
pound the  Scriptures  without  supporting  liberty  as  well  as 
proper  loyalty.43 

An  illustration  of  the  less  public  influence  of  certain  ministers 
of  the  time  is  found  in  the  friendship  of  Franklin  for  the  Rev. 
Samuel  Cooper.  Their  correspondence  continued  throughout 
the  war  and  shows  that  Franklin  considered  Cooper's  knowl- 

42  Ibid.,  p.  23.  In  4th  ed.  he  adds,  "on  Rum".  This  edition  also  has  appendix  on 
immediate  abolition  of  slavery,  pp.  21-22.  "That  it  is  not  rebellion,  I  declare  it 
before  God,  the  congregation,  and  all  the  world,  and  I  would  be  glad  if  it  reached 
the  ears  of  every  Briton,  and  every  American  .  .  .  Shall  a  man  be  deem'd  a 
rebel  that  supports  his  own  rights?  it  is  the  first  law  of  nature,  and  he  must  be 
a  rebel  to  God,  to  the  laws  of  nature,  and  his  own  conscience,  who  will  not  do  it." 
See  S.  Howard,  Artillery  Sermon,  1773.  Men  have  retained  all  rights  not  expressly 
given  up;  they  can  never  give  up  certain  ones;  regard  to  religion  makes  war 
in  defense  of  liberty  obligatory.  See  N.  Eng.  Hist.  6*  Geneal.  Register,  XXXI.  249. 
Howard  often  set  forth,  1772-74,  "the  true  grounds  of  dispute."  Cf.  J.  Scales, 
History  of  Strafford  County,  N.  H.,  pp.  182-83.  A  sermon  of  Rev.  Jeremy  Belk- 
nap of  Dover  at  a  military  review  speaks  of  "hostile  invaders"  and  says,  "Must 
we  tamely  yield  to  every  lawless  usurper  and  suffer  tyrants  to  sport  with  the  lives 
and  estates  of  mankind?"   The   Second  Regiment  asked  to   have  it   printed. 

43  Turner,  pp.  6-7,  13-14,  16-18,  37-40.  He  discusses  the  first  charter  which  had 
been  "murdered",  the  God-given  right  of  the  people  to  choose  their  own  officials  and 
to  hold  them  to  account,  the  right  of  the  people  to  judge  when  resistance  is  necessary, 
the  iniquity  of  profound  secrets  in  government,  the  long  training  of  the  people  in 
devotion  to  the  House  of  Hanover  and  a  constitutional  government,  the  close  con- 
nection between  civil  and  religious  freedom.  This  sermon  was  widely  read.  Cushing 
sent  a  copy  to  Franklin.  S.  Adams  sent  a  copy  to  Arthur  Lee.  Cf.  S.  Adams, 
Writings,  III.  44-45.  Turner  also  preached  at  Plymouth  Anniversary,  1773,  and  a 
"glorious  spirit  of  liberty  .  .  .  breath'd  thro'  every  sentence"  {Essex  Gazette, 
Feb.  8,  1774). 


120         The  Nezv  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

edge  and  wisdom  of  very  real  value.  They  sent  pamphlets, 
articles,  sermons,  etc.  to  each  other  and  gave  them  to  others 
to  read.  From  London  Franklin  wrote  confidentially  to  Cooper 
and  asked  his  advice  on  various  matters.44  In  1770  Franklin 
wrote,  "You  have  given,  in  a  little  Compass,  so  full  and  com- 
prehensive a  View  of  the  Circumstances  on  which  is  founded 
the  Security  Britain  has  for  all  reasonable  Advantages  from  us, 
tho'  things  were  put  into  the  same  State  in  which  they  were 
before  the  Stamp  Act,  that  I  cannot  refrain  communicating 
an  extract  of  your  Letter,  where  I  think  it  may  be  of  Use ;  and 
I  think  I  shall  publish  it."45  And  again  in  1771  he  begged  for 
further  letters,  saying;  "Your  candid,  clear,  and  well  written 
Letters,  be  assured,  are  of  great  use.  .  .  ,"46  In  1772  Franklin 
wrote  that  Cooper  had  furnished  him  with  a  new  and  very  good 
argument  against  the  dependence  of  governors  upon  the  Crown. 
"Your  Reasonings,"  said  Franklin,  "against  the  Instruction 
are  unanswerable,  and  shall  appear  here  just  before  the  meet- 
ing of  Parliament.47  During  1773  Franklin  again  begged  a 
continuance  of  Cooper's  letters  and  news,  saying  that  they 
were  "highly  useful"  to  him  and  pleasing  everywhere.  At  that 
time  and  later  Cooper  was  Franklin's  confidential  correspondent 
in  Boston.48  Others  whose  correspondence  was  of  special  value 
were  Ezra  Stiles,  of  Newport,  Chauncey  and  Eliot,  of  Boston, 
Jeremy  Belknap,  of  Dover,  N.  H.,  and  Benjamin  Trumbull,  of 
Connecticut. 

The  preceding  illustrations  and  others  of  like  sort  prove  the 
influence  of  many  of  the  New  England  clergy,  especially  the 
Congregationalists,  in  stirring  and  keeping  alive  a  spirit  of 
active  resistance  to  the  acts  of  Great  Britain  between  1765  and 

**  Franklin,  Writings,  ed.  Smyth,  vols.  V  and  VI  (many  letters  between  1769 
and  1776). 

«  Ibid.,  V.  286. 

40  Ibid.,   V.   299. 

41  Ibid.,  V.  3S7-S8.  His  argument  was  "that  this  propos'd  Independence  is  im- 
politic on  the  part  of  the  Crown,  and  tends  to  prejudice  its  Interest,  even  con- 
sidered separately  from  that  of  the  People,  as  it  will  prove  a  strong  temptation  to 
Governors  to  hold  a  Conduct  that  will  justly  lessen  their  Esteem  and  Influence  in 
the  Province,  and  consequently  their  power  to  promote  the  service  of  the  King." 
For  Cooper's  influence  see  Tyler,  Literary  History  of  American  Revolution,  II. 
302-06;  Winsor,  Memorial  History  of  Boston,  III.  123-24;  Sprague,  I.  442-44 
See  also   Cooper's  letters  to  Pownall,  Amer.   Hist.  Rev.,   VIII.   301-30. 

43  Franklin,  Writings,  ed.  Smyth,  VI.  107-09;  X.  248.  See  N.  C.  Bruce,  Ben- 
jamin Franklin,  I.  21,  353.  Cooper  was  one  of  three  to  whom  Franklin  sent  Hutch- 
inson's letter.  He  wrote  to  Franklin  that  he  had  kept  the  trust  inviolable  {Writings 
VI.  57-59;  Bowdoin  and  Temple  Papers,  I.  434). 


Keeping  Alive  the  Flame:  1766-1774  121 

1774  and  in  developing  and  spreading  abroad  the  arguments 
on  which  it  was  based.  They  also  were  already  developing  and 
teaching,  on  the  basis  of  the  traditional  theories,  the  conceptions 
of  a  fixed  constitution  and  of  the  organization  of  a  free  govern- 
ment which  were  later  to  lead  to  the  demand  for  a  constitutional 
convention  and  a  written  constitution. 


Chapter  IX 
RESISTANCE  AT  ALL  COSTS  :  1774-1776 

In  May  of  1774  a  gentleman  of  New  York  wrote  to  his 
friend  in  London  excoriating  the  clergy  of  New  England1  for 
their  "most  wicked,  malicious  and  innamatory  harangues  .... 
spiriting  their  godly  hearers  to  the  most  violent  opposition  to 
Government ;  persuading  them  that  the  intention  of  the  Gov- 
ernment was  to  rule  them  with  a  rod  of  iron,2  and  to  make 
them  all  slaves;  and  assuring  them  that  if  they  would  rise  as 
one  man  to  oppose  these  arbitrary  schemes,  God  would  assist 
them  to  sweep  away  every  ministerial  tool,  .  .  .  from  the  face 
of  the  earth;  that  now  was  the  time  to  strike,  whilst  Govern- 
ment at  home  was  afraid  of  them;  together  with  a  long  string 
of  such  seditious  stuff,  well  calculated  to  impose  on  the  poor 
devils  their  hearers,  and  make  them  run  into  every  degree  of 
extravagance  and  folly,  which,  if  I  foresee  aright,  they  will 
have  leisure  enough  to  be  sorry  for."3 

1  Force,  American  Archives,  4th  Ser.  I.  301-02.  The  writer  inveighs  against  the 
Presbyterian  pulpits,  "especially  to  the  eastward."  The  term  Presbyterian  was 
very  commonly  used  to  describe  both  Congregationalists  and  Presbyterians.  Hutch- 
inson believed  that  the  Congregationalists  had  been  most  extreme,  generally  wishing 
independence,  while  Baptists,  Quakers,  Presbyterians,  and  Methodists,  he  thought 
were  neutral.  See  J.  H.  Allen,  "Remarks  on  the  Religious  Situation  in  the  American 
Colonies  before  the  Revolution",  (Mass.  Col.  Soc.  Pub.,  III.  42).  At  a  later  date 
than  the  letter  referred  to,  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  declared  that  its 
members  had  not  used  their  pulpits  for  political  discussions.  It  is  probable,  I  think 
unquestionable,  that  the  writer  referred  chiefly  to  the  Congregational  clergy  of 
New  England.  Oliver,  The  Origin  and  Progress  of  the  American  Rebellion,  p.  148, 
says  of  the  years  1774-76:  "As  to  their  Pulpits,  many  of  them  were  converted 
into  Gutters  of  Sedition,  the  Torrents  bore  down  all  before  them.  The  Clergy  had 
quite   unlearned  the   Gospel,   &  had   substituted   Politicks   in   its    Stead." 

2  This  was  a  phrase  used  during  this  year  by   Rev.  Thos.   Allen   of   Pittsfield. 

8  The  author  says  that  in  general,  the  Church  of  England  people  had  been  truly 
loyal,  without  any  public  oratory  to  spur  them  on.  By  writing  and  argument 
they  had  done  all  they  could  to  stop  sedition.  The  Episcopalians  of  Boston,  and 
other  Massachusetts  towns,  congratulated  Gage  on  his  appointment,  declaring  it 
their  duty  to  cultivate  "a  Spirit  of  Loyalty  to  the  King,  and  of  "Obedience  to  the 
Rulers"  that  were  over  them.  Cf.  Boston  News-Letter,  May  26,  1774.  The  Bap- 
tists, as  a  whole,  seem  to  have  been  suspected,  in  New  England  at  least,  of  luke- 
warm attachment  to  the  American  cause  and  of  trying  to  embarrass  the  New 
Englander.  Rev.  Hezekiah  Smith,  for  example,  heard  the  Election  Sermon  of 
Gad  Hitchcock  which  so  angered  Gage  by  its  seditious  spirit  and  then  dined  with 
Gage  in  an  effort  to  procure  his  assistance  in  getting  complete  liberty  for  the  Bap- 
tists. See  Minutes  of  the  Warren  Association,  1774-76;  Backus,  History  of  New 
England;  Truth  will  Prevail;  Guild,  Chaplain  Smith,  pp.  160-61.  Backus  and  the 
other  leaders  declared  their  adherence  to  America,  and  when  the  break  came  in 
1775    all   the   Baptists   apparently   gave   active   support. 

[122] 


Resistance  at  All  Costs:  1774-1776  123 

If  there  was  some  measure  of  truth  in  this  complaint  early 
in  1774,  it  was  assuredly  increasingly  true  as  the  American 
drama  quickened.  In  passing  the  Boston  Port  Bill  and  suc- 
ceeding acts  Parliament  exercised  its  right  to  control  the 
colonies  in  all  ways  whatsoever,  a  right  which,  though  asserted 
in  1766,  the  colonists  had  hoped  would  be  forever  dormant.  In 
the  crisis  the  leaders  on  both  sides  recognized  the  power  of 
the  clergy.  And  well  they  might ! 

Led  by  the  old,  fiery  Dr.  Chauncey,  the  Boston  ministers 
refused  to  read  any  proclamations  of  the  governor  and  council4 
and,  when  General  Gage  refused  to  appoint  a  day  of  fasting 
and  prayer  because  "the  request  was  only  to  give  an  opportunity 
for  sedition  to  flow  from  the  pulpit",5  these  associated  ministers 
proposed  that  July  14th  be  observed.6  Quick  was  the  response. 
Political  sermons,  some  of  them  violent  in  tone,  were  preached 
from  Boston  to  the  frontier.7  The  Provincial  Congress  of  Mas- 
sachusetts requested  the  clergy  to  advise  strict  obedience  to  the 
Continental  Congress  and  to  "make  the  question  of  the  rights 
of  the  colonies  and  the  oppressive  conduct  of  the  mother  coun- 
try a  topic  of  the  pulpit  on  week  days."8  The  Continental  Con- 
gress, recognizing  the  value  of  these  politico-religious  sermons, 
advised  the  setting  aside  of  special  days  of  fasting  and  of 
thanksgiving.  These  were  observed  in  all  the  New  England 
colonies  and  on  each  day  the  ministers  set  forth  in  greater  detail 
the  old  theories,  established  from  Holy  Writ  the  legal  right  of 
resistance  to  unconstitutional  action  and,  often  in  burning 
phrase,  urged  their  people  to  resist  even  to  bloodshed.  Many  of 
these  sermons  were  published  as  patriotic  pamphlets.9 

4  Love,  Fast  and  Thanksgiving  Days,   p.  334. 

0  Headley,  p.  58.  Gage,  who  had  been  unexpectedly  present  at  the  Election  Ser- 
mon of   1774,   had  been   infuriated  by   Hitchcock's   bold   plea  for   resistance. 

6  Ibid.;   Love,  p.   335;   Boston   News-Letter,   June   23,    1774. 

''Boston  News-Letter,  Aug.  11,  1774;  Love,  p.  335.  See,  for  example,  Timothy 
Hilliard,  The  Duty  of  a  People,  The  Substance  of  Two  Sermons,  Delivered  at  Barn- 
stable, July  14th,  1774;  Peter  Whitney,  The  Transgression  of  a  Land  Punished  by 
a  Multitude  of  Rulers  .  .  .  two  Discourses,  Delivered  July  14,  1774,  at  North- 
borough  (remarkably  direct  and  powerful, — his  father,  the  Rev.  Aaron  Whitney,  of 
Petersham,  was  a  Tory).  Peter  Whitney,  from  1774-76,  preached  many  patriotic 
sermons,  (the  texts  of  which  are  given  on  p.  70  of  C.  Kent,  Northborough  History) 
which  were  of  great  influence  in  the  town;  S.  Webster,  The  Misery  and  Duty  of  an 
oppress' d  and  enslav'd  People  ....  at  Salisbury;  J.  Belknap,  Dover,  N.  H.  See 
J.   Scales,  History  of  Strafford  County,  N.  H.,  pp.   182-84. 

s  Thornton,  xxxvii-xxxviii;  Headley,  p.  23;  Griffith,  Historical  Notes  of  the 
American  Colonies  &  Revolution,  Appendix,  p.  293;  Love,  pp.  336-38.  For  Address  to 
Clergy,   Dec.   6,    1774,   see  Force,   4th    Ser.,  I.  1000. 

9  Ebenezer  Baldwin,  Thanksgiving  Sermon,  Nov.,  1775  (Love,  p.  336,  says 
Thanksgiving    Sermons    of    Dec,    1775,    preached    in    Bradford,    Eastham,    Hatfield, 


124         The  Neiv  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

There  were  many  other  occasions  also  to  call  forth  such  ser- 
mons, not  only  artillery  and  general  election  days,  but  the 
Plymouth  anniversary,  the  anniversary  of  the  Boston  Mas- 
sacre and  after  1775,  that  of  the  battle  of  Lexington,  etc.10 
But  political  sermons  were  not  confined  to  special  occasions. 
One  can  well  imagine  that  many  a  minister  was  glad  to  discuss 
week  by  week  subjects  which  he  knew  would  fill  his  church. 
In  country  districts  sermons  were  preached  on  English  and 
colonial  history  and  on  the  difficulties  with  England,  as  well 
as  on  theories  of  government.  Two  such  which  were  most 
interesting  were  delivered  by  Samuel  Sherwood  of  Fairfield, 
Connecticut,  in  August,  1774  and  published  with  an  appendix 
by  Ebenezer  Baldwin,  of  Danbury.  They  were  preached  and 
published  to  arouse  the  people  of  western  Connecticut  who 
seemed  to  these  clergymen  too  ready  to  listen  to  specious  argu- 
ments and  "to  lose  their  liberty  and  sink  into  slavery."  Of  the 
same  sort  were  the  six  sermons  of  the  radical  Dan  Foster,  of 
Poquonnock,  preached  in  October,  1744  in  a  country  church  near 
Winsor,  Connecticut,  not  to  those  who  had  read  widely  but  to 
the  common  people.11 

Marblehead,  Roxbury,  and  Boston,  were  all  published) ;  J.  Lyman,  Thanksgiving 
Sermon,  Dec.  15,  1774  (the  town  thanked  him  and  ordered  it  printed.  See  Wells, 
History  of  Hatfield,  p.  186);  P.  Whitney,  Fast-Day  Sermons,  1775  (not  pub- 
lished; see  C.  Kent,  Northborough  History,  p.  70);  J.  Lathrop,  Discourse,  Dec. 
15,  1774  at  Boston;  William  Gordon,  Discourse,  Dec.  15,  1774  at  Boston  (preached 
again  the  same  day, — very  political  and  extreme,  and  called  forth  pamphlets  in 
opposition.  See  Love,  p.  337);  R.  Ross,  A  Sermon  in  which  the  Union  of  the 
Colonies  is  considered  and  recommended,  Nov.  16,  1775;  Eleazar  Wheelock,  Liberty 
of  Conscience,  Nov.  30,  1775  (also  preached  Nov.  16);  Henry  Cummings,  Sermon, 
1775  (Sprague,  VIII.  157);  S.  Williams,  Love  of  Our  Country,  Dec.  1774  (that  we 
should  resist  the  English  Acts  but  preserve  peace  and  loyalty.  See  Kingsbury, 
Memorial  History  of  Bradford,  p.   101). 

10  Election  Sermons,  Connecticut:  1774,  by  Samuel  Lockwood,  of  Andover;  1775, 
by  Joseph  Perry,  of  East  Windsor;  1776,  by  Judah  Champion,  of  Litchfield.  Massa- 
chusetts: 1774,  by  Gad  Hitchcock,  of  Pembroke;  1775,  by  Samuel  Langdon,  of  Ports- 
mouth; 1776,  by  Samuel  West,  of  Dartmouth.  Gordon,  History  of  .  .  .  Independence 
.  .  .  of  America,  I.  273,  says  passages  in  election  sermons  most  adapted  to  promote 
and  spread  the  love  of  freedom  had  been  sent  far  and  wide  through  the  newspapers 
and  "read  with  avidity  and  a  degree  of  veneration,  on  account  of  the  preacher  and 
his  election  to  the  service  of  the  day";  and  that  thus  they  had  helped  not  a  little  in 
forwarding  and  strengthening  opposition  to  the  parliamentary  claim.  The  sermon  of 
Champion  in  1776  was  printed  by  the  Assembly  within  three  weeks  of  its  delivery,  in 
an  edition  of  500  copies.  Cf.  Bates,  "Fighting  the  Revolution  with  Printer's  Ink," 
New  Haven   Colony  Hist.   Soc.  Papers,  pp.    149-50. 

Anniversary  Sermons:  of  Plymouth,  by  Gad  Hitchcock  in  1774,  by  Samuel  Bald- 
win in  1775;  of  Lexington,  by  Jonas  Clark  in  1776  (this  sermon  attracted  a  great 
crowd  including  militia  and  strangers;  among  others  the  Rev.  J.  Marrett,  of  Woburn, 
rode  over  to  hear  it),  and  another  by  Peter  Whitney,  of  Northborough;  of  the  Boston 
Massacre,  by  Peter  Thacher  in  1776  (preached  in  Boston  and  greatly  applauded;  see 
Boston  Town  Records,  1770-1777,  pp.  225-26);  of  the  evacuation  of  Boston,  by 
Ebenezer    Bridge    in    1776    (see   Moore,    Diary    of  the   Revolution,    I.    225). 

11  Sherwood,  A  Sermon,  Containing  Scriptural  Instructions  to  Civil  Rulers,  and 
all  Freeborn  Subjects.   In  which  the  Principles  of  sound  Policy  and  good   Govern- 


Resistance  at  All  Costs:  1774-1776  125 

Sometimes  a  minister  was  called  upon  to  preach  at  town 
meetings,  at  county  conventions,  and  provincial  conferences.12 
The  Rev.  Ebenezer  Chaplin,  who  had  defended  the  works  of 
Wise  and  had  upheld  democracy  in  church  and  state,  was 
especially  asked  to  attend  the  meetings  of  the  Worcester  Con- 
vention,13 and  the  addresses  of  Reverend  Elisha  Fish  of  Upton 
before  this  Convention  were  printed  and  distributed  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  Convention.14  Such  addresses  were  no  perfunc- 
tory, conventional  affairs,  but  breathed  conviction  and  enthusi- 
asm and,  occasionally,  a  passionate  devotion  to  cause  and  coun- 
try. 

There  was  one  kind  of  occasion  during  these  years,  as  well 
as  later,  in  which  the  clergy  were  of  special  service.  When  the 
militia  mustered  or  recruiting  was  to  be  done,  it  was  the  custom 
to  have  an  address  by  the  pastor.  In  the  months  before  the  battle 

ment  are  established  and  vindicated  .  .  .  An  appendix  states  grievances  and  pictures 
consequences.  See  Foster,  A  Short  Essay  on  Civil  Government,  and  R.  Ross,  A  Ser- 
mon on  the  Union  of  the  Colonies  preached  to  a  country  audience,  Nov.  16,  1775. 
G.  W.  Balch,  in  an  article  on  Rev.  Benj.  Balch,  in  Danvers  Hist.  Coll.,  VI.  88, 
says:  "During  the  entire  Revolutionary  period  the  latter  were  leaders  and  the  most 
potent  factors  in  resistance  to  British  oppression  ...  In  the  absence  of  a  numerous 
newspaper  press,  the  political  education  of  the  people  then  as  now  in  sparsely  settled 
regions  was  conducted  largely  from  the  pulpit — or  the  stump."  Sherwood,  Baldwin, 
and  Foster  all  speak  of  the  lack  of  knowledge  among  their  people  concerning  the 
cause  of  trouble.  Baldwin  in  his  Appendix,  p.  47,  says  western  Connecticut  is  "re- 
mote from  public  intelligence,"  few  have  opportunity  to  read  papers  and  other  writ- 
ings, are  therefore  little  acquainted  with  their  danger,  do  not  yet  feel  "the  weight  of 
oppression,"  etc.  He  proceeds  to  recount  British  Acts  and  give  suggestions  as  to 
what  to  do  in  the  "alarming  crisis."  Other  men  whose  work  was  especially  notable  in 
this  respect  were  Thos.  Allen,  of  Pittsfield,  Joseph  Lyman,  of  Hatfield,  Cotton 
Mather  Smith,  of  Sharon,  Conn.,  Moses  Hemmenway,  of  Wells,  Me.,  Peter  Powers, 
of  N.  H.,  Moses  Morrill,  of  Biddeford,  friend  of  James  Sullivan,  Elizur  Goodrich  of 
Durham,    Conn. 

12  Town  Meetings.  To  Corporation  of  Freemen  in  Farmington,  Connecticut,  Ser- 
mon on  "Liberty  described  and  recommended  .  .  .  ",  Sept.  20,  1774,  by  Levi  Hart 
of  Preston.  There  are  many  others  in  town  histories,  etc.,  for  example,  James  Dana, 
at  Wallingford,  Conn.,  Nov.  29,  1774  (.Walling ford  Revolutionary  Records,  p.  2); 
Joseph  Lyman  in  Hatfield  (Wells,  History  of  Hatfield,  p.  182) ;  Samuel  Eaton,  in 
Brunswick,  Me.,  Apr.  1775  (Wheeler,  History  of  Brunswick,  pp.  673-80;  Sprague, 
I.  615);  Rev.  Dr.  Williams,  at  the  request  of  the  selectmen,  opened  the  town  meet- 
ing of  Lebanon,  Conn.,  on  July  18,  1774,  called  to  discuss  the  alarming  situation 
and  to  help  Boston;  about  300  freeholders  were  present  (R.  R.  Hinman,  His- 
torical Collections  from  official  records,  files,  etc.  of  the  part  sustained  by  Connecticut 
...  p.  69).  Peter  Thacher,  of  Maiden,  preached  similarly  at  Watertown,  Mar.  5, 
1776.  See  Niles,  Principles  and  Acts  of  the  Revolution. 

13  At  least  three  clergymen  attended  the  Worcester  Co.  Convention  in  1774.  Two 
others  were  probably  there  and  perhaps  more.  Ebenezer  Chaplin,  of  Sutton,  Benj. 
Conklin,  of  Leicester,  Joseph  Wheeler,  of  Harvard,  went  as  delegates.  Elisha  Fish, 
or  "Mr.  Paine",  was  asked  to  preach;  the  pulpit  was  that  of  Thaddeus  Maccarty. 
Cf.  Journals  of  Each  Provincial  Congress  of  Mass.,  pp.   628,   631,   635-36,   649,   651. 

14  Journals  of  Each  Provincial  Congress,  p.  651.  Elisha  Fish,  A  Discourse  delivered 
at  Worcester,  March  28th,  1775,  at  the  desire  of  the  Convention  of  Committees  for 
the   County    of   Worcester. 


126         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

of  Lexington,  minister  after  minister,  as  if  in  preparation  for 
the  coming  struggle,  called  upon  the  men  to  be  of  stout  heart 
and  good  courage,  ready  to  wield  the  sword  of  the  Lord.  On 
numerous  occasions  a  fiery  minister  of  the  Gospel  won  more 
recruits  and  filled  more  empty  regiments  than  could  the  men  of 
war.15  For  example,  soon  after  Falmouth  was  burned  in 
August,  1775,  a  recruiting  officer  who  was  vainly  trying  to 
raise  men  in  Harpswell,  Maine,  asked  Samuel  Eaton,  the 
patriotic  minister  of  the  town,  to  speak  on  Sunday  morning  to 
his  people.  Unwilling  to  do  this  at  the  communion  service,  he 
promised  to  address  them  in  the  evening.  So  after  sundown, 
out  of  doors  before  the  meeting-house  steps,  he  preached  on 
the  text,  "Cursed  be  he  that  keepeth  back  his  sword  from 
blood,"  and  before  the  night  was  over  forty  men  had  volun- 
teered.16 Again,  the  recruiting  officers  had  worked  four  days 
in  vain  to  raise  a  company  in  Boothbay,  Maine,  when  Pastor 
John  Murray  was  asked  to  try  his  hand.  He  spoke  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church  and  kindled  such  enthusiasm  that  in  two 
hours  the  entire  company  was  filled.17 

In  all  these  and  like  sermons  and  addresses  the  chief  aim 
seems  to  have  been  to  state  clearly  and  repeatedly  the  argu- 
ments by  which  men  could  be  certain  that  they  had  inalienable 
rights  and  to  define  these  rights;  to  set  forth  in  detail  the 
requirements  of  a  legally  constituted  government  and  to  show 
that  the  English  and  colonial  governments,  if  unabused,  were 
such;  to  enumerate  and  enlarge  upon  the  acts  by  which  King 
and  Parliament  had  abused  their  power,  and  to  establish  beyond 
a  doubt  the  legal  right  and  moral  necessity  of  resistance. 

As  in  earlier  sermons,  both  before  and  after  1763,  the  intimate 
connection  between  theology  and  political  theory  is  apparent. 
Like  their  predecessors  these  men  also  preached  of  the  fixed 

15  Examples  of  such  sermons:  Levi  Hart,  Apr.  19,  1775,  at  Preston,  Conn.;  Z. 
Adams,  Jan.  2,  1775,  at  Lunenburg  (preached  to  the  militia  after  a  large  dinner; 
there  were  many  spectators;  the  next  day  the  town  voted  100  L.  M.  for  arms,  etc. 
See  Essex  Gazette,  Jan.  24,  1775) ;  Ebenezer  Baldwin,  to  a  company  of  100  men, 
Mar.,  1775,  at  Danbury;  William  Emerson,  Jan.  and  Mar.  1775,  to  the  militia  at 
Concord  (Shattuck,  History  of  Concord,  p.  93)  ;  John  Urquhart,  after  Lexington,  to 
the  men  of  Rockland  and  South  Thomaston,  Me.  (Eaton,  History  of  Rockland,  I. 
114);  J.  Belknap  to  the  men  at  Dover,  June  14,  1775  (Scales,  History  of  Strafford 
County,  p.  184)  ;  David  Avery,  after  Lexington,  at  Gageboro,  Vt.  and  again  on  his 
way  to  Boston  with  recruits  (Headley,  pp.  287,  291  and  Chase,  History  of  Dart- 
mouth College,  I.  308  note). 

18  Sprague,   I.   615;   Wheeler,  History  of  Brunswick,  p.   736. 

17  Greene,  Boothbay,  Southport  and  Boothbay  Harbor,  p.  233;  Sprague,  I.  p.  615. 


Resistance  at  All  Costs:  1774-1776  127 

constitution  of  God,  of  the  Bible  as  establishing  and  illustrat- 
ing great  principles  of  civil  government,  of  the  natural  and 
Christian  rights  of  men  which  were  given  by  God,  certain  of 
which  could  not  be  given  up  and  in  violation  of  which  laws 
were  null  and  void.  These  rights  were  discussed  in  more  detail, 
for  the  most  part,  than  before  1763,  but  with  few  additions.18 

One  of  the  most  significant  features  is  the  interest  shown  in 
the  mechanism  of  setting  up  governments  and  making  consti- 
tutions, in  the  relation  of  the  executive  to  the  legislative  power, 
and  in  the  power  of  the  people.  Very  shortly  the  states  of  New 
Hampshire  and  Massachusetts  were  to  establish  new  govern- 
ments and  the  clergy  to  exercise  an  influence  in  determining 
their  character.  By  their  careful  and  frequent  discussions  of 
principles  the  ministers  were  gaining  the  reputation  which  gave 
them  their  later  influence.  Thus  in  speaking  of  reserved  rights, 
the  Rev.  Dan  Foster  included  "a  voice  in  all  public  discussions 
concerning  peace  and  war  with  other  states ;  making  alliances 
with  other  powers ;  sending  and  receiving  embassies ;  entering 
into  natural  leagues  and  compacts ;  settling  and  regulating  trade 
and  commerce,  &c.  &c."19  In  these  the  people  must  share  either 
in  person  or  by  representatives.  The  assertion  of  religious 
liberty  was  increasingly  frequent  and  comprehensive.  West  in 
1776  said;  "No  principles  ought  ever  to  be  discountenanced  by 
civil  authority,  except  such  as  tend  to  the  subversion  of  the 
state.  So  long  as  a  man  is  a  good  member  of  society,  he  is 
accountable  to  God  alone  for  his  religious  sentiments."20 

A  clear  and  succinct  definition  of  the  right  of  property  was 
given  by  Elisha  Fish.  It  meant,  he  said,  the  right  of  each  in- 
dividual to  enjoy  his  own  earnings,  a  right  with  that  of  life 
and  liberty  given  him  by  God  and  stampt  upon  the  human  soul. 
He  prayed  that  God  would  grant  the  "enslaved  nations  of  the 
world  a  more  clear  and  full  sight  of  this  human  birth  right, 
that  is  unalienable  by  man."21 

For  the  most  part,  when  natural  equality  was  discussed, 
the  reverend  authors  meant  the  equality  and  freedom  of  action 
which  they  imagined  men  to  have  possessed  before  the  founda- 

18  Sherwood,    1774,  p.   11;   Foster,   1774,   pp.    18,   25,   35;   Champion,   1776,  p.    12; 
West,  1776,  pp.  11-12;   Hitchcock,  Sermon  at  Plymouth,  Dec,   1774,  pp.   18,  33-34. 
18  Foster,    pp.    48-50. 

20  West,   p.    45. 

21  Fish,    p.    8:   see   also    p.    21. 


128         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

% . 

tion  of  society  and  government,  when  no  one  had  any  authority 
over  another, — a  freedom  which  could  be  limited  only  by  con- 
sent and  always  for  the  common  good.  Now  and  then,  how- 
ever, the  more  practical  though  revolutionary  suggestion  was 
made  of  the  desirability  of  greater  economic  equality.  Stephen 
Johnson  and  others  had  spoken  against  supporting  "idle 
drones",22  and  against  concentrating  the  wealth  of  the  world 
in  the  hands  of  ruler  and  minister.23  Benjamin  Trumbull 
favored  dividing  property  as  equally  as  possible,  not  allowing 
a  few  persons  to  hold  all  the  wealth  of  a  country.  He  warned 
against  adopting  any  law  or  precedent  with  such  a  tendency 
because  of  the  danger  that  such  persons  would  purchase  or  by 
undue  influence  obtain  all  important  positions  in  the  govern- 
ment and  so  oppress  their  fellowmen,  who  would  thus  become 
servile  and  little  by  little  lose  their  true  liberty.24 

An  increasing  number  of  ministers  seem  also  to  have  realized 
the  inconsistency  of  claiming  freedom  as  a  natural  right  and 
of  the  clamor  against  a  slavery  threatened  by  England  when 
there  existed  in  the  colonies  a  slavery  which  seemed  to  give  the 
lie  to  their  sincerity.25  Only  a  few  were  radical  in  this  sense; 
by  far  the  larger  number  confined  themselves  to  the  issue  with 
England.  There  was,  however,  sufficient  radical  democracy  in 
a  number  of  sermons  to  prove  that  the  "levelling"  spirit  of 

22  Johnson,  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1770,  p*.  20. 

23  C.  Turner,  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1773,  p.  8:  such  pride  and 
luxury  "on  spoils  violently  extorted  or  slily  drained  from  the  people,  is  altogether 
foreign  to  the  design  of  God,  in  setting  them  up."  Peter  Whitney,  in  two  discourses 
in  July,  1774,  says  civil  rulers  and  ministers  "should  not  ingross  the  wealth  of 
the  world  to  themselves  as  they  have  done  in  many  ages  and  countries,"  and  that 
pensions  and  too  many  officials  weigh  too  heavily  on  the  poor  (pp.  14,  25-26).  Parts 
of  Whitney's  sermons  sound  as  if  quoted  almost  word  for   word  from  Turner. 

"Trumbull,  Sermon,  1773,  pp.  30-31.  Rev.  Ebenezer  Baldwin  thought  that  the 
greater  equality  of  fortune  in  America  at  the  founding  of  the  nation  might  make 
for  greater  liberty  than  the  world  had  ever  known.  See  also  Webster's  Election 
Sermon,  1777,  p.  30,  against  monopolies;  Phillip's  Election  Sermon,  1778,  which 
favored  a  "great  distribution  of  property  and  the  landed  interest  not  engrossed 
by  a  few";  Dana's  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1779,  and  Ezra  Stiles'  of  1783 
which  urged  free  tenure  of  land,  equable  distribution  of  property  and  no  large 
landed  estates. 

25  See  Boston  Nezvs  Letter,  March  25,  1773.  Samuel  Cooke's  Election  Sermon  of 
1770  was  one  of  the  earliest  to  oppose  slavery.  Among  those  noted  for  opposition  to 
slavery  was  Rev.  David  Osgood,  of  Medfield.  The  town  in  December,  1772,  and 
January,  1773,  instructed  its  representative  to  do  his  utmost  to  have  the  slave 
trade  abolished.  Others  of  note  were  Rev.  Samuel  Hopkins,  of  Newport,  Rhode 
Island,  Ebenezer  Baldwin,  Levi  Hart,  young  Jonathan  Edwards,  Jeremy  Bel- 
knap, David  Avery,  Elam  Potter,  Nathaniel  Emmons,  Andrew  Eliot,  Isaac  Lewis, 
Ezra    Stiles.    Belknap   and   others  wrote   articles   for    the   press    opposing   it. 


Resistance  at  All  Costs:  1774-1776  129 

New  England  which  aroused  fear  in  men  of  other  colonies 
was  not  to  be  found  alone  among  the  poorer  classes.26 

There  was  prolonged  explanation  of  government  by  consent. 
Certain  of  the  sermons  applied  this  doctrine  to  the  right  of  the 
majority  and  to  the  making  and  changing  of  constitutions. 
Compacts  and  their  sacredness  were  a  constant  theme,  especially 
emphasized  because  of  the  argument  that  the  King  in  per- 
mitting the  charters  to  be  broken  had  been  guilty  of  breaking 
of  compact  and  had  therefore  released  the  colonies  from 
allegiance.  By  this  break,  so  said  some,  the  colonists  were  neces- 
sarily thrown  back  into  a  state  of  nature  and  resumed  all  rights 
which  they  had  originally  possessed.27  Broken  covenants  and 
unconstitutional  invasion  of  the  rights  upon  which  the  English 
throne  itself  was  founded  could  be  and  must  be  met  by  steady 
resistance.  The  legal  right  of  resistance  was  discussed  in  great 
detail,  perhaps  the  more  warmly  because  Anglican  clergy  were 
preaching  of  loyalty  and  the  unquestioning  obedience  to  author- 
ity demanded  by  the  Scriptures.28  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
classic  writers,  modern  and  ancient  philosophers  and  divines 
and  often  "the  great  Mr.  Lock"  were  cited  in  proof  of  the  duty 
as  well  as  the  right  to  resist  tyranny  and  any  attack  upon  the 
rights  of  men.29 

It  must  be  clearly  understood  that  to  these  reverend  authors 
resistance  to  unconstitutional  acts  did  not  mean  refusal  to  obey 

28  John  Adams,  Life  and    Works,   11.330;   1.151. 

27  See  Essex  Gazette,  July  13,  1775,  articles  by  Rev.  John  Cleaveland  under 
name  of  "Johannis  in  Eremo".  Sherwood,  Foster,  Cleaveland,  Whitney,  Webster, 
Thacher,  and  others  speak  of  the  charters  as  compacts  and  the  breaking  of  them 
as  a  specially  heinous  violation  of  their  rights.  Hitchcock,  Whitney,  Lathrop,  Sher- 
wood, Hart,  Foster,  Backus,  Fish,  West,  and  others  discuss  all  government  as 
compact   which   all   parties   are   bound  to   observe.    For   quotation,  see   Appendix. 

23  This  study  does  not  deal  with  the  activities  of  the  Anglican  clergy  in  New 
England.  Much  can  be  found  in  Cross's  Anglican  Episcopate  and  Sabine's  Loyalists 
in  the  American  Revolution.  Practically  all  of  the  Episcopal  clergy  of  New  England 
were  loyal  to  England  and  some,  at  least,  wrote  and  preached  vigorously  against 
rebellion.  There  was  much  answering  of  arguments.  In  Sept.  1774,  directly  after 
the  meeting  of  the  Continental  Congress,  Dr.  Seabury  and  Dr.  Wilkins  published 
Free  Thoughts  on  the  Proceedings  of  the  Continental  Congress,  setting  forth  its 
errors,  etc.  Sherwood  and  Baldwin  published  their  pamphlets  in  1774,  partly  to 
counteract  such  teachings.  See  Pascoe,  Two  Hundred  Years  of  the  S.  P.  G.,  pp. 
71-77;  Dexter,  "Notes  on  some  of  the  New  Haven  Loyalists",  in  New  Haven  Colony 
Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  IX.  33;  W  .H.  Munro,  History  of  Bristol,  R.  L,  pp.  212,  222.  At 
the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution  there  were  nineteen  Episcopal  clergymen  in  Conn., 
fifteen  being  Yale  graduates. 

29  Hitchcock,  pp.  19,  22-25,  46-47;  Foster,  pp.  70-71;  Gordon,  1774,  pp.  26-27; 
Baldwin,  1775,  p.  29;  Wheelock,  Wheelock  Papers,  no.  775305.  There  are  too  many 
references  to  give.  Many  assert  the  right  of  the  people  to  judge,  etc.  I  have 
references  to  thirteen  sermons  which  discuss  it  more  or  less  in  detail  between  1774 
and  July,  1776. 


130         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

constitutional  authority.  Far  from  it.  Though  recognizing  the 
provocation  to  violence  and  though  sometimes  encouraging 
abuse  of  the  Tories,  there  was  many  a  minister  who  drew 
careful  distinction  between  liberty  and  license.  It  was  the 
liberty  which  was  to  their  minds  inextricably  associated  with 
constitutional,  ordered  government  for  which  they  were  fight- 
ing.30 

That  some  of  the  New  England  ministers,  especially  of  the 
Congregationalists,  were  preaching  independence  and  preparing 
for  it  long  before  1776  is  evident.  As  early  as  1765  Stephen 
Johnson  had  suggested  that  England  might  act  so  as  to  force 
the  colonies  into  independence.  From  that  time  it  had  been 
mentioned  as  possible  by  an  increasing  number  and  in  the  later 
years  as  probable  and  even  desirable.31  The  Rev.  Cotton  Mather 
Smith,  of  Sharon,  Connecticut,  is  said  to  have  prepared  his 
parishioners  for  independence  long  before  Lexington.32  The 
Rev.  Timothy  Dwight  advocated  separation  in  1775,  using  the 
same  arguments  as  were  later  approved,  but  found  that  most  of 
those  with  whom  he  talked  were  either  too  hostile  or  too 
timorous,  even  after  Lexington.33  The  Rev.  Ezra  Stiles  long 
expected  and  wished  it.34  The  Rev.  John  Cleaveland  in  the 
Essex  Gazette  of  June  7,  1774,  said  of  Great  Britain,  "she  is 
become  cruel  as  the  Ostrich,  more  cruel  than  Sea-Monsters 
towards  their  young  ones !  her  Measures  tend  not  only  to  dis- 
solve our  political  Union  to  her  as  a  Branch  of  the  British 

"  For  examples  of  the  vigorous  language  of  the  clergy,  see  letters  by  "Johannis  in 
Eremo"  [Cleaveland]  to  General  Gage,  Essex  Gazette,  July  1775,  and  a  sermon  by 
the  Rev.  William  Gordon,  December  1774,  part  of  which  was  repeated  at  a  Boston 
lecture  and  which  called  forth  pamphlets  in  opposition.  One  such,  Remarks  upon  a 
Discourse  Preached  December  15th,  1774,  asked,  "Where  could  this  reverend 
politician — Christian  sower  of  Sedition — war  faring  priest — have  learnt  to  preach 
up  doctrines  of  sedition,  rebellion,  carriage  and  blood?  ...  I  most  heartily  wish, 
for  the  peace  of  America,  that  he  and  many  others  of  his  profession  would  confine 
themselves  to  gospel  truth."  The  author  believes  this  address  tends  directly  to 
bring  on  civil  war   (pp.   6-8).   See  also  Thornton,  p.   196. 

81  Sherwood,  1774,  p.  13;  Thacher  in  his  Watertown  Address,  Mar.  5,  1776,  wel- 
comed it  eagerly.  He  is  also  said  to  have  written  the  instructions  of  the  town  to 
its  representative,  on  May  27,  1776,  saying:  "it  is  now  the  Ardent  wish  of  our 
Soles  that  America  may  become  free  &  Independent  States  .  .  .  we  .  .  .  Renounce 
with  Disdain  our  Connection  with  a  Kingdom  of  Slaves,  we  bid  a  final  adue  to 
Britain,  Could  an  Accomadation  be  now  affected  we  have  Reason  to  think  that  it 
would  be  fatal  to  the  Libertyes  of  America  ...  we  are  Confirmed  in  ye  oppinion 
that  the  Present  age  will  be  Deficient  in  their  Duty  to  God  their  Posterity  &  them- 
selves if  they  do  not  Establish  an  american  Republick.  ..."  (Corey,  History  of 
Maiden,  pp.  762-65). 

SJHeadley,  pp.  308-09. 

33  Ibid.,   pp.   177-78. 

34  Ibid.,  pp.  205-06;   Sprague,  I.  475-77. 


Resistance  at  All  Costs:  1774-1776  131 

Empire,  but  to  destroy  our  Affection  to  her  as  the  Mother 
State.  .  .  .";  and  on  April  20th,  and  July  13th,  1775  he 
declared  all  connections  were  broken  and  allegiance  totally 
dissolved.35  On  July  14,  1774,  the  Rev.  Peter  Whitney,  of 
Northboro,  asserted  that  the  colonies  were  the  pillars  of  Eng- 
land, that  Ireland  was  calling  for  help,  and  that  the  attempt  to 
enslave  America  might  be  the  end  of  England.36  By  the  spring 
of  1776  other  clergymen  were  advocating  independence.  On 
April  19th,  1776,  the  Rev.  Jonas  Clarke,  of  Lexington,  preached 
in  favor  of  it  to  a  large  audience,37  and  in  his  Election  Sermon 
of  May,  1776,  Samuel  West  said  that  Providence  was  plainly 
pointing  out  to  America  the  expediency  and  even  the  necessity 
of  becoming  an  independent  state.38 

Yet  there  were  numbers  of  New  England  clergy  who  did 
not  approve  of  so  radical  a  position.  There  were  perhaps  some 
who  secretly  desired  independence  but  thought  it  unwise  to 
make  open  avowals  of  any  such  intention  or  desire.  Men  of 
other  colonies  in  1774-1775  feared  what  they  called  the  wish 
of  Massachusetts  for  independence.  In  the  cause  of  unity  the 
Massachusetts  delegates  to  the  Continental  Congresses  urged 
great  prudence.  This  may  have  accounted  for  the  expressions 
of  loyalty  in  the  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon  of  1775  and  in 
certain  other  sermons  during  that  year.39  There  were  others 
who  did  not  wish  to  break  with  England  but  who  supported 
America  loyally  when  the  break  did  come.40  A  few  succeeded 

35  See  also   Force,   American  Archives,   4th   Ser.,   II.  369. 

36  Kent,  History  of  Northboro,  pp.  67-68.  See  also  Sermon,  p.  68.  The  resolution  of 
Northboro  in  favor  of  independence,  passed  on  June  3,  1776,  is  said  to  have  been 
due  to  the  influence  of  the  Rev.  Peter  Whitney.  Rev.  Nathaniel  Emerson,  of 
Wrentham,  alienated  some  of  his  parish  by  advocating  it  (Sprague,  I.  695) ;  the 
Rev.  Peter  Thacher  of  Attleborough  was  on  a  committee  drawing  up  an  unanimous 
recommendation  in  May,  1776  (Daggett,  History  of  Attleborough,  p.  122).  The  Rev. 
Thomas  Allen  of  Pittsfield  early  advocated  it.  There  were  various  others:  Moses 
Morrill,  of  Biddeford,  John  Adams,  of  Durham,  N.  H.,  both  friends  of  James 
Sullivan,  Benj.  Pomeroy  of  Hebron,  etc.  See  also  Moore,  Diary  of  the  Revolution, 
pp.  43-44. 

37  Clarke,  Sermon,  Apr.  19,  1776,  p.  22. 

88  West,  pp.  20-21.  On  Mar.  17,  1776,  Samuel  Cooper  wrote  to  Franklin  that 
Paine's  Common  Sense  was  read  with  eagerness  {Calendar  of  Franklin  Papers, 
I.  19).    Thos.    Allen   also   read   Paine   with   avidity. 

39  Adams  and  Perry  in  sermons  of  Jan.  and  May,  1775,  asserted  loyalty  to  King; 
Langdon  in  May,  1775  in  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon  prayed  for  reconciliation 
with  all  rights  preserved.   See  J.  Adams,  Life  &   Works,   I.  151. 

40  Rev.  Eleazar  Wheelock  was  not  one  of  early  advocates  of  independence,  though 
he  believed  in  assertion  of  rights.  By  April,  1775  he  saw  little  chance  of  recon- 
ciliation. See  Memoirs,  pp.  330,  332,  note;  Chase,  History  of  Dartmouth,  pp.  317, 
324-26;  Wheelock  Papers,  no.  775279.  Thos.  Darling,  Benj.  Woodbridge,  Nehemiah 


132         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

in  avoiding-  politics  entirely  and  yet  held  the  affection  of  their 
people.41  But  there  were  certain  Congregationalists  who,  like 
the  Anglicans,  disapproved  heartily  of  the  very  thought  of 
independence  and  who  resented  its  advocacy  by  their  brethren.42 
As  the  struggle  grew  hotter  it  became  increasingly  difficult  for 
a  minister  to  run  counter  to  the  will  of  his  people.  In  some 
cases  those  suspected  of  open  or  secret  loyalty  to  England  were 
called  before  committees  to  clear  themselves.43  Some  lost  their 
churches  and  a  few  suffered  in  various  other  ways.44 

What  proportion  of  the  ministers  preached  independence  be- 
fore 1776,  whether  they  were  in  advance  of  their  parishioners, 
and  to  what  extent  they  influenced  public  opinion  are  questions 
hard  to  determine.  There  seems  no  doubt  that  a  few  advocated 
independence  openly  before  it  seemed  expedient  or  even  desir- 
able to  many  of  the  leading  laymen.  Their  words  must  have 
steadied  the  wavering  and  have  given  courage  to  those  who 
were  less  daring.  At  the  least  they  gave  the  sanction  of  the 
church  to  the  movement.45 

In  some  cases  the  ministers  brought  fire  and  ardor  to  the 
hope  of  independence.  They  had  faith  that  the  scattered  and 
ill-prepared  colonists  could  meet  triumphantly  the  arms  of 
Great  Britain.  "The  British  nation,"  said  young  Peter  Thacher 
in  1776,  "is  now  become  a  great  tame  beast  .  .  .  instead  of 

Strong  of  Conn,  were  never  ardent.  See  Dexter,  "Notes  on  some  of  the  New  Haven 
Loyalists",  New  Haven  Colony  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  IX.  40-41. 

41  One  such  was  the  venerable  Ebenezer  Gay,  of  Hingham,  whose  indifferent 
patriotism  was  attacked  in  the  press.  Others  were  Sam'l  West,  of  Needham,  Sam'l 
Williams,  of  Bradford,  who  believed  in  peaceful  methods  of  resistance,  and  Daniel 
Collins  of  Lanesboro.  See  Boston  News-Letter,  Nov.  26,  1772,  Jan.  13  and  Mar. 
4,  1773;  Biographical  Memoirs  of  Rev.  Thos.  Thacher,  pp.  9-10;  Sprague,  VIII. 
4,  52;  Kingsbury,  Memorial  Historical  of  Bradford,  p.  101;  Palmer,  History  of 
Lanesboro,   pp.    12-13.   82. 

42  See  Sabine,  Loyalists  in  the  American  Revolution.  He  mentions  twelve  Con- 
gregational ministers  who  were  either  lukewarm  or  out  and  out  Loyalists.  There 
were  others,  as  well.  Rev.  Mathew  Byles,  of  Boston,  was  one  of  the  best  known. 

43  Among  these  were  Asa  Dunbar,  of  Weston,  Sam'l  Dana,  of  Groton,  who  in 
Mar.,  1775  preached  non-resistance,  Timothy  Harrington,  of  Lancaster,  and  Eben- 
ezer Morse,  of  Shrewsbury.  See  Essex  Gazette,  June  8,  Sept.  21,  1775;  Massa- 
chusetts Spy,  Nov.  24  and  Dec.  15,  1775;  Butler,  History  of  Groton,  pp.  178-79;  and 
Marvin,  History  of  Lancaster,  pp.   304-05. 

44  Peter  Whitney,  of  Petersham,  Abraham  Hill,  of  Shutesbury,  David  Parsons, 
of  Amherst,  Benj.  Parker,  of  Haverhill.  See  Crane,  Peter  Whitney  and  his  History 
of  Worcester  Co.,  pp.  9-10;  Judd,  History  of  Hadley,  pp.  410-11;  Chase,  History  of 
Haverhill,  p.  579. 

45  For  the  people  to  throw  away  their  liberties,  wantonly,  without  a  life  and 
death  struggle,  said  Judah  Champion  in  his  great  Connecticut  Election  Sermon  of 
May,  1776,  could  not  be  done  "without  incurring  Jehovah's  most  tremendous  in- 
dignation and  curse.  God,  angels  and  spirits  in  glory  all  look  on  ...  "  (pp.  30-31). 


Resistance  at  All  Costs:  1774-1776  133 

ravaging  the  American  continent  in  a  single  campaign,  with 
a  single  regiment,  they  have  proceeded — one  mile  and  a  half 
in  the  conquest  of  it.  .  .  .  Formidable  as  was  once  the  power 
of  the  British  lion  he  hath  now  lost  his  teeth.  .  .  ,"46  Union 
and  strict  adherence  to  the  will  of  the  Continental  Congress 
were  urged.  There  is  scarcely  a  sermon  of  these  and  later  years 
which  does  not  emphasize  the  necessity  of  union,  and  many 
newspaper  articles  urging  it  were  written  by  ministers.  Ross  of 
Stratford  devoted  a  whole  sermon  in  1775  to  its  necessity  and 
blessing.47  Among  these  men  were  a  few  of  prophetic  vision 
who  believed  that  America  was  to  lead  the  world  in  an  under- 
standing and  a  realization  of  democracy.  With  eager  eyes  they 
saw  the  America  of  the  future,  a  great  free  country,  a  refuge 
to  the  oppressed  of  all  nations,  a  golden  land  of  Liberty.  It  was 
to  be  America's  task  and  joy  to  reinterpret  Liberty  and  to 
embody  it  in  her  institutions.48 

*e  Niles,  Principles  &  Acts,  pp.  25-26.  See  also  Cleaveland,  Essex  Gazette,  Sept. 
20,   1774   (under  the  name,   "Johannis  in  Eremo"). 

47  Robert  Ross,  A  Sermon  in  which  the  Union  of  the  Colonies  is  considered  and 
Recommended. 

48  The  ministers  seemed  to  feel  that  liberty  was  dead  in  England  and  in  Europe. 
They  waxed  eloquent  over  the  opportunity  in  America.  See  Hilliard,  1774,  p.  30; 
Lathrop,  1774,  p.  28;  Champion,  1776,  p.  16;  Thos.  Barnard,  of  Salem  (Journal- 
Letters  of  the  late  Samuel  Curwen,  letter  of  June  26,  1776);  Baldwin,  both  in  1774 
and  in  1775.  Baldwin  went  into  much  detail  in  his  prophecies  of  a  great  American 
Empire,  estimating  population,  etc.  This  would  be  founded  on  as  yet  unknown 
principles  of  Liberty  and  Freedom.  He  believed  that  the  struggle  would  cause  such 
principles  to  be  more  carefully  examined  than  in  the  foundation  of  any  other  state. 
He  thought  possibly  there  might  be  established  such  great  liberty  that  Christ 
might  set  up  His  Empire  here.  Cf.  Sermon,  1775,  pp.  38-40  and  notes.  He  said, 
in  1775,  it  was  fortunate  that  trouble  had  started  in  New  England,  which  best 
understood  and  enjoyed  liberty  and  was  better  trained  to  militia  service.  Had  it 
started  in  the  South  it  could  have  been  more  easily  put  down.  See  also  Appendix 
to  Sherwood's  Address,  1774.  Thacher  was  perhaps  most  ecstatic.  Cf.  Niles,  p.  26. 
Other  like  sermons  were  preached  during  the  war.  "From  this  day  will  be  dated  the 
Liberty  of  the  world,"  said  Jonas  Clark  in  commemorating  the  battle  of  Lexington 
(Sermon,  Apr.  1776,  p.  81). 


Chapter  X 

THE  MAKING  OF  CONSTITUTIONS 

When  the  war  with  Great  Britain  began  and  especially  when 
the  colonies  declared  their  independence  and  attempted  to 
reorganize  their  governments,  the  ministers  of  New  England 
had  an  unusual  opportunity  to  clothe  their  theories  in  flesh  and 
blood.  The  principles  which  had  been  theoretical  became  prac- 
tical, and  the  ministers  insisted  that  the  new  governments  be 
founded  on  the  pattern  they  had  so  long  been  laying  down. 
The  constitutional  convention  and  the  written  constitution 
were  the  children  of  the  pulpit. 

To  the  men  of  New  England  who  had  been  nourished  from 
their  youth  on  the  election  sermons  and  who  had  been  thor- 
oughly enlightened  by  their  pastors  in  theoretical  and  practical 
politics,  it  was  but  natural  to  turn  to  the  ministers  when  they 
needed  some  one  to  express  their  ideas  of  government.  More- 
over, in  many  of  the  smaller  towns  the  farmers  had  had  little 
experience  in  writing,  and  the  ministers  were  almost  invariably 
educated  men.  Thus  the  clergy  had  an  immense  opportunity 
to  push  home  their  cherished  convictions  and  to  help  in  form- 
ing the  new  political  institutions.1 

In  this  respect  there  were  peculiar  differences  among  the 
New  England  colonies.  New  Hampshire  and  Massachusetts 
records  show  that  many  towns  availed  themselves  of  their 
pastor's  help,  even  making  him  their  sole  representative  in 
provincial  congresses  and  conventions.  In  Connecticut  and 
Rhode  Island,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  the  rare  thing  to  find  a 
minister  elected  to  any  committee  or  congress.  This  may  have 
been  due  in  part,  in  Connecticut  at  least,  to  the  somewhat  gen- 

1  The  material  for  a  study  of  this  phase~~of  ministerial  influence  is  scattered 
through  all  kinds  of  colonial  records  and  historical  collections,  especially  town  and 
county  histories  and  records.  Sometimes  in  a  list  of  members  of  committees  and 
conventions  there  will  occur  the  name  of  one  or  more  ministers  but  without  the 
prefix  Reverend,  and  in  such  cases  it  is  possible  that  the  pastor  may  have  had  a 
son  of  the  same  name  who  was  serving.  Usually  the  Reverend  is  prefixed,  however, 
and  in  this  study  only  those  who  are  definitely  stated  to  be  ministers  are  con- 
sidered. The  appendix  gives  a  list  of  some  of  those  who  were  members  of  com- 
mittees, etc.  and  names  also  the  committees,  etc.,  upon  which  they  served.  A 
more  complete  search  would  doubtless  greatly  lengthen  this  list,  especially  in 
Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire. 

[134] 


The  Making  of  Constitutions  135 

eral  criticism  of  many  of  the  clergy  in  that  colony.  There  had 
been  for  years,  as  has  been  shown,  a  conflict,  partly  ecclesias- 
tical and  partly  political,  in  which  laymen  often  disapproved  the 
action  of  the  clergy.  Yet  the  Connecticut  ministers  were,  for 
the  most  part,  active  and  influential  patriots.  In  Rhode  Island 
there  was  none  of  the  alliance  between  church  and  state  which 
troubled  Connecticut,  yet  there  also  ministers  did  not  to  any 
extent  serve  on  committees  or  in  congresses.  These  two  colonies 
carried  on  the  new  state  governments  under  their  old  charters 
and  there  was  no  need  for  any  new  application  of  the  theories 
of  government.  The  contrary  was  true  in  New  Hampshire  and 
Massachusetts.  It  seems  possible  that  the  people  of  New  Hamp- 
shire and  especially  of  Massachusetts,  realizing  that  their  gov- 
ernment must  be  made  anew,  wished  to  utilize  the  peculiar 
knowledge  and  wisdom  of  the  ministers  who  had  so  long 
discussed  before  them  the  principles  of  government. 

In  general  it  may  be  said  that  the  clergy  served  chiefly  on 
committees  of  correspondence  and  safety,  on  committees  to 
draw  up  instructions  to  representatives,  on  committees  to  re- 
port upon  proposed  constitutions  and  to  draw  up  suggestions 
for  amendment  or  reasons  for  disapproval,  and  as  delegates 
to  assemblies  and  constitutional  conventions.  Their  election  to 
such  offices  is  of  peculiar  significance  in  any  attempt  to  estimate 
their  influence.  It  seems  hardly  likely  that  they  would  have 
been  elected  had  their  parishioners  not  been  willing  to  seek 
their  guidance  and  trust  their  judgment.  It  is  true,  of  course, 
that  many  leading  townsmen  were  away,  either  in  the  army  or 
in  other  service,  and  possibly  the  minister's  influence  was  there- 
fore the  greater.  But  the  surprisingly  large  number  of  pastors 
who  were  chosen  to  assist  in  committee  work  and  in  constitu- 
tion making  is  a  striking  testimony  to  the  faith  of  the  people 
in  their  knowledge  and  sympathy. 

Again  and  again  in  these  state  papers,  as  in  their  sermons, 
the  ministers  express  their  confidence  in  the  Continental  Con- 
gress and  their  desire  to  abide  by  its  decisions.  For  example, 
the  committee  of  Attleborough,  Massachusetts,  of  which  the 
Rev.  Peter  Thacher  was  a  member,  in  May  of  1776  instructed 
its  delegate  as  follows :  "If  Continental  Congress  should  think  it 
best  to  declare  for  Independency  of  Great  Britain,  we  unani- 
mously desire  you   for  us  to  engage  to  defend  them  therein 


136         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

with  our  lives  and  fortunes,"2  and  the  committee  of  Maiden  in 
a  paper  drawn  up  by  another  Rev.  Peter  Thacher  declared  in 
May  1776:  "we  have  unbounded  confidence  in  the  wisdom  and 
uprightness  of  the  Continentall  Congress."3  Undoubtedly  the 
ministers  saw  that  union  was  indispensable  to  the  cause  and 
were  instrumental  in  furthering  it  and  in  keeping  alive  faith 
in  the  Congress.  , 

In  many  of  their  resolutions  and  instructions  the  ministers 
stressed  the  doctrines  of  natural  and  constitutional  rights  and 
fundamental  law.  They  voiced  the  unalterable  determination  of 
the  people  never  to  yield  them  and,  though  they  wrote  for  the 
whole  town  or  county,  it  is  easy  to  catch  the  enthusiasm  and 
conviction  of  the  writers  themselves. 

But  it  was  when  they  dealt  with  the  proposed  state  constitu- 
tions that  certain  of  the  ministers  were  most  determined  to 
see  their  theories  put  into  effect.  They  would  tolerate  no  make- 
shift government  set  up  by  legislatures.  The  people,  by  breaking 
away  from  Great  Britain,  had  placed  themselves  in  a  state  of 
nature  and  could  only  set  up  a  new  government  by  a  compact 
made  by  themselves  in  a  constitutional  convention  called  for 
that  sole  purpose.  And  in  this  constitution  there  must  be  a  clear- 
cut  declaration  of  inalienable  rights.  Their  representatives  were 
instructed  to  insist  upon  this.  The  ministerial  eye  was  fixed 
watchfully  upon  the  legislature,  and  when  a  constitution  was 
presented  to  them  that  had  not  been  formed  in  this  fashion  they 
led  their  townspeople  to  reject  it,  proceeded  to  give  their  reas- 
ons, and  continued  their  demands  upon  the  Assembly.  For 
example,  when  the  town  of  Billerica  began  in  1775  to  consider 
the  form  of  government  to  be  adopted,  it  chose  as  one  of  its 
committee  its  beloved  and  democratic  minister  Henry  Cum- 
mings,  who  had  directed  its  earlier  action  against  Great  Britain. 
He  served  on  various  such  committees  thereafter,  influenced 
the  town  to  reject  the  constitution  of  1778,  and  was  elected  to 

2  Daggett,  Sketch  of  the  History  of  Attleborough,  p.  122. 

3  Corey,  History  of  Maiden,  p.  764.  There  are  many  other  such  illustrations.  As 
early  as  June,  1776,  Rev.  Zabdiel  Adams  urged  upon  his  cousin,  John  Adams, 
the  need  of  a  national  constitution.  John  Adams  answered  "I  am  fully  with  you 
in  sentiment  that  although  the  authority  of  the  Congress,  founded  as  it  has  been 
in  reason,  honor,  and  the  love  of  liberty,  has  been  sufficient  to  govern  the  colonies 
in  a  tolerable  manner,  for  their  defense  and  protection,  yet  that  it  is  not  pru- 
dent to  continue  very  long  in  the  same  way  and  that  a  permanent  constitution 
should  be  formed,  and  foreign  aid  obtained"  (John  Adams,  Life  and  Works,  IX. 
399). 


The  Making  of  Constitutions  137 

the  constitutional  convention  of  1779,  where  he  served  on  at 
least  seven  committees.4  Cummings  was  but  one  of  many  clergy- 
men who  were  active  in  procuring  the  rejection  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  1778  by  their  towns.  Their  disapprobation  was  sometimes 
expressed  through  the  newspapers,  more  often  in  town  instruc- 
tions. 

The  restless  Rev.  William  Gordon,  of  Roxbury,  who  had 
preached  so  vehemently  against  England  in  1774  and  1775, 
now  wrote  frequent  articles  to  the  Independent  Chronicle  and 
other  papers  on  the  subject  of  government  in  general  and  the 
proposed  constitution  in  particular  and  was  finally  dismissed 
in  1778  from  his  position  as  chaplain  because  of  his  free  criti- 
cism of  the  Assembly.5  Others  who  actively  opposed  the  work 
of  the  Assembly  were  Samuel  Cooper,  of  Boston,  Peter  Thacher 
and  Habijah  Weld,  of  Attleborough,  Joseph  Willard,  of  Bev- 
erly, Peter  Thacher,  of  Maiden,  Jonas  Clark,  of  Lexington,  and 
Thomas  Allen  and  Valentine  Rathbun,  of  Pittsfield.6 

The  chief  reasons  for  objections  were  that  the  Assembly 
had  not  been  chosen  for  the  express  purpose  of  drawing  up  a 
constitution  and  that  no  bill  of  rights  was  included.  The  insis- 
tent demand  of  the  towns  for  a  constitutional  convention  seems 
to  have  been  due  in  part  at  least  to  the  ministers.  They  who  had 
for  years  been  preaching  that  government  originated  in  com- 
pact now  insisted  that  when  the  old  compact  with  England  was 
abrogated  the  people  must  in  person  or  through  their  repre- 
sentatives make  a  new  one  and  that  no  government  was  truly 
legal  until  that  had  been  done.  They  who  had  taught  so  long 
the  sacredness  of  natural  rights  demanded  that  these  rights 
be  clearly  defined  and  stated.  One  of  the  ablest  of  the  town 
papers  drawn  up  by  clergymen  and  expressing  the  views  held 
by  many  of  his  fellow  ministers  was  that  of  Jonas  Clerk,  of 
Lexington,  written  in  June,  1778,  giving  the  reasons  for  the 

4  Hazen,  History  of  Billerica,  pp.  238-39.  The  town  is  said  to  have  acted  as  if 
semi-independent  until  after  the  acceptance  of  the  constitution.  Cf.  Journal  of  the 
Convention,   pp.    91,    135,   173. 

5  Massachusetts  Spy  or  American  Oracle  of  Liberty,  Apr.  23,  1778.  One  letter,  out 
of  several,  speaks  of  the  "late  motley  convention"  and  disapproves  of  the  constitu- 
tion; wants  a  convention  called  which  will  not  be  the  General  Court.  See  also 
Manual  for  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  Massachusetts,  1719,  p.  16;  Bradford, 
History  of  Massachusetts,  II.  157,  note.  Gordon  was  dismissed  in  Apr.,  1778.  He 
was  an  ambitious  man,  a  politician. 

6  See  Daggett,  Sketches  of  History  of  Attleborough,  p.  126;  Stone,  History  of 
Beverly,  p.  68;  Corey,  History  of  Maiden,  p.  774,  note;  Headley,  p.  156;  Hudson, 
History  of  Lexington,  pp.   262-64. 


138         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

town's  refusal  to  accept  the  constitution  offered  by  the  As- 
sembly. 

"It  may  be  observed,"  wrote  Clark,  "that  it  appears  to  us 
that  in  emerging  from  a  state  of  nature  into  a  state  of  well- 
regulated  society,  mankind  gave  up  some  of  their  natural  rights 
in  order  that  others  of  greater  importance  to  their  well-being, 
safety  and  happiness,  both  as  societies  and  individuals,  might 
be  the  better  enjoyed,  secured  and  defended.  That  a  civil  Con- 
stitution or  form  of  government  is  of  the  nature  of  a  most 
sacred  covenant  or  contract  entered  into  by  the  individuals 
which  form  the  society,  for  which  such  Constitution  or  form 
of  government  is  intended,  whereby  they  mutually  and  solemnly 
engage  to  support  and  defend  each  other  in  the  enjoyment  of 
those  rights  which  they  mean  to  retain.  That  the  main  and  great 
end  of  establishing  any  Constitution  or  form  of  government 
among  a  people  or  in  society,  is  to  maintain,  secure  and  defend 
those  natural  rights  inviolate."  He  spoke  then  of  the  necessity 
of  having  the  fundamental  rights  which  were  retained  explicitly 
stated  in  a  Declaration  of  Rights,  so  that  Government  and  per- 
sons in  authority  might  know  the  Kmits  of  their  powers  and 
that  all  members  of  society  might  know  when  their  rights  were 
violated  or  infringed.  Clarke  then  mentioned  other  objections. 
He  conceived  that,  next  to  a  Declaration  of  Rights,  equality  of 
representation  was  of  the  greatest  importance  to  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  liberties  of  the  subject  and  the  peace  and  safety  of 
society.  He  considered  the  proposed  distribution  of  representa- 
tion inadequate  and  feared  that  the  small  towns  might  become 
an  easy  prey  to  the  corrupt  influence  of  designing  men,  as,  he 
said,  had  been  frequently  and  notoriously  the  fact  in  England 
and  many  other  states.  A  rotation  of  office  he  also  believed 
desirable,  and  therefore  advocated  a  limitation  on  eligibility. 
The  Legislative  and  Executive  he  thought  should  not  be  blended 
and  better  provisions  for  amendment  by  the  people  themselves 
should  be  provided.7  This  minister,  who  held  his  people  in  the 
hollow  of  his  hand  and  who  was  the  friend  and  counsellor  of 
statesmen,  had,  through  years  of  meditation  and  study,  worked 
out  in  fine  detail  the  theories  of  government,  and  he  greatly 
desired  to  see  his  state  put  them  into  effect.  That  his  people 

T  Hudson,   History  of  Lexington,   pp.   262-64.   Lexington   Town   Records,    1778   to 
1791,  record  of  June  15,  1778;  Headley,  pp.  76-77. 


The  Making  of  Constitutions  139 

appreciated  his  peculiar  ability  is  evidenced  by  their  choosing 
him  in  1779  to  serve  as  their  representative  in  the  Constitutional 
Convention.8 

In  his  belief  in  rotation  of  office  and  his  fear  for  the  small 
town,  Clark  showed  his  tendency  to  sympathize  with  the  demo- 
cratic theories  of  the  day.  During  these  years  of  the  Revolution 
there  was  more  liberal  and  even  radical  thought  among  the  New 
England  ministers  than  one  would  expect  who  is  accustomed  to 
thinking  of  the  Puritan  clergy  as  stiffly  conservative  and  intoler- 
ant. For  example,  it  was  not  only  prominent  Baptists  like  Isaac 
Backus  and  Hezekiah  Smith  who  fought  in  every  possible  way 
to  bring  about  complete  religious  toleration  in  Massachusetts.9 
Although  many  of  the  Congregational  clergy,  like  Chauncey, 
were  thoroughly  in  favor  of  the  old  ways,  others,  like  Avery 
and  Allen,  were  as  eager  for  reform  as  any  Baptists.  There  can 
be  little  doubt  that  the  sermons  and  papers  of  such  men,  as  well 
as  the  many  newspaper  articles  and  addresses  to  the  Assembly 
by  Backus  and  other  Baptists,  did  much  to  cause  the  fairly  wide 
opposition  to  taxation  for  ministers'  salaries  and  to  obtain  in  the 
constitution  of  1780  a  greater  tolerance  than  under  the  old 
provincial  law.  The  arguments  used  were  those  of  natural,  con- 
stitutional, and  Christian  rights,  and  there  was  much  quoting  of 
Locke  and  comparison  of  the  religious  with  the  political  situa- 
tion.10 Although  taxation  still  continued  Backus  himself  believed 

8  Lexington  Town  Records,  Meeting  of  Aug.  2,  1779.  He  was  chosen  unanimously. 

9  See  Boston  Gazette,  1778  ff.  Feb.  22,  1779,  Backus  wrote:  "all  our  contests 
with  the  court  of  Britain  have  been  to  limit  them  to  their  constitution,  so  as  not 
to  tax  us  where  we  are  not  represented  nor  to  impose  judges  upon  ns  who  are 
interested  against  us.  And  I  challenge  Dr.  Chauncy,  Mr.  Payson  and  their 
whole  party,  to  prove  if  they  can,  that  I  or  my  brethren  have  ever  requested  or 
tried  for  any  other  or  greater  liberty,  thaii  to  have  these  rules  of  equity  fully 
established  here."  In  answer  "Swift"  said  in  Gazette  of  Mar.  8,  1779:  "I  love  the 
Baptists,  but  I  hate  Backus  and  only  for  his  unbounded  thiist  for  slander.  He  has 
published  the  most  palpable  falsehoods  against  an  innocent  people."  See  also 
Backus,  Works,  2  vols.  One  of  his  most  interesting  addresses  is  Government  and 
Liberty  Described  and  Ecclesiastical  Tyranny  Exposed,  published  in  Boston  in 
1778.  The  Life  cf  Backus  by  Hovey  gives  a  good  account  of  his  work. 

10  Backus  considered  Chauncey  the  leader  of  the  conservatives.  The  Gazette  and 
other  papers,  1778-80,  had  many  articles  for  and  against  complete  religious  liberty. 
The  Baptists  most  influential  were  Backus,  Smith,  and  Stillman,  who  preached  the 
Election  Sermon  in  1779.  Of  the  non-Baptists,  Shute,  Avery,  and  Allen  are  typical. 
In  Dec.  1777,  David  Avery  preached  in  favcr  of  perfect  liberty  in  all  the  states. 
For  Shute,  see  sermons  already  quoted  and  Sprague,  VIII.  19-21.  In  1779  Rev. 
Isaac  Foster,  of  West  Stafford,  published  a  Defence  of  Religious  Liberty  which 
was  answered  by  Joseph  Buckminister  of  Rutland;  see  Massachusetts  Spy  or  Amer- 
ican Oracle  of  Liberty,  Oct.  28,  Nov.  5,  1779;  Apr.  13,  May  18,  1780;  Boston 
Gazette,  May  22,  1780;  also  Works  of  Backus,  etc.;  and  Minutes  of  Warren  Associ- 
ation. 


140         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

that  the  obnoxious  third  article  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  which  per- 
mitted it  was  to  a  large  extent  nullified  by  its  last  clause,  that 
no  subordination  of  any  one  sect  or  denomination  to  another 
should  ever  be  established  by  law.11 

In  the  making  of  the  new  constitution  the  majority  of  the 
ministers  seem  to  have  been  democratically  inclined.  They  wish- 
ed to  weaken  the  powers  of  council  and  executive  and  to 
strengthen  those  of  the  lower  house.12  Some,  both  in  Massa- 
chusetts and  in  New  Hampshire,  doubted  the  necessity  of  hav- 
ing any  governor  or  council  at  all.  Others  did  not  believe  in 
property  qualifications  either  for  voting  or  for  office.13  There 
seems  to  have  been  a  fear  that  the  populous  and  commercial 
towns  would  gain  power  at  the  expense  of  the  more  sparsely 
settled,  agricultural  communities.14  This  was  especially  true  in 
the  western  sections  of  New  Hampshire  and  Massachusetts. 
Certain  abuses  had  grown  up  under  the  provincial  government, 
and  when  they  bade  fair  to  continue  under  the  new  state  control 
the  discontented  people  of  the  back  country  defied  the  central 
government.  As  each  movement  was  led  by  ministers  and  as 
each  affected  the  making  of  the  constitution,  they  are  of  special 
interest  in  any  attempt  to  estimate  the  influence  of  the  clergy. 

In  western  Massachusetts  the  leading  spirit,  the  man  who 
put  his  whole  heart  and  soul  into  the  movement  and  aroused 
a  people  who  were  sometimes  indifferent,  was  the  Rev.  Thomas 
Allen,  of  Pittsfield.15  The  people  of  Berkshire  County  had 
suffered  because  of  the  exactions  of  the  lawyers  and  the  courts. 
The  judges  had  often  been  political  appointees,  and  the  people 
felt  themselves  obliged  to  pay  unduly  heavy  fees  and  taxes  to 
maintain   them.   Debtors   also   were   harshly  treated.   Thomas 

11  In  1783  in  his  Address  to  Friends  and  Countrymen,  p.  6,  Backus  wrote:  "The 
American  revolution  is  wholly  built  upon  this  doctrine,  that  all  men  are  born 
with  an  equal  right  to  what  Providence  gives  them,  and  that  all  righteous  govern- 
ment is  founded  in  compact  or  covenant,  which  is  equally  binding  upon  the  officers 
and  members  of  each  community.  And  tho'  many  pleaded  for  this  doctrine,  who 
were  averse  to  having  the  same  reduced  to  practice  among  us,  especially  in  re- 
ligious affairs,  yet  God  has  taken  the  wise  in  their  own  craftiness,  in  such  manner, 
as  not  only  to  disappoint  their  expectations,  but  also  to  exceed  our  hopes."  He 
said  that  the  last  clause  of  the  third  article  "overthrows  the  super-structure  which 
was  intended  to  have  been  built  thereon." 

12  J.  Adams,  Life  and  Works,  IV.  273,  note;  Mass.  Hist  Soc.  Coll.,  1st  Ser. 
VIII.   281. 

13  See  below. 

14  See  Massachusetts  Spy,  Nov.  13,  Dec.  4,  1776;  Boston  Gazette,  Sept.  6,  1779; 
letter  from  Samuel  Cooper  to  Benjamin  Franklin  in  Franklin  Papers,  Univ.  of 
Pennsylvania  Library;  cf.  J.  T.  Adams,  Revolutionary  New  England,  pp.  114-17, 
123-25,    142-50,    200-209. 


The  Making  of  Constitutions  141 

Allen  declared  that  "our  fellow  citizens  in  this  county  have 
been  ruled  with  a  rod  of  iron".16  Men  of  this  region  preferred 
the  old  charter  of  1629  to  that  of  1691  and  when  the  war  began 
looked  for  at  least  as  free  a  government  as  that  had  been.  When 
it  seemed  to  them  that  the  Assembly  was  setting  up  a  form  of 
government  little  better  than  the  old  they  began  to  make  a 
vigorous  protest. 

Thomas  Allen  was  a  man  of  great  energy  and  of  demo- 
cratic spirit.  He  had  studied  Puritan  principles  of  government 
as  well  as  of  religion  and  now  he  read  many  of  the  pamphlets 
and  other  writings  of  the  day  on  government  and  politics  and 
took  up  the  task  of  arousing  Berkshire  against  what  he  con- 
sidered the  dangerous  tendencies  that  were  showing  themselves 
at  Boston.17  From  1775  until  1780  he  never  rested  from  his 
labors.  Traveling  through  Berkshire  he  spoke  in  every  town, 
preached  sermons,  wrote  letters,  called  conventions,  and  drew  up 
resolutions.  Smith,  the  historian  of  Pittsfield,  says  that  "a 
single  address  by  him  was  sometimes  sufficient  to  revolutionize 
the  entire  sentiment  of  a  town  against  the  wishes  of  its  own 
most  prominent  citizens,"  and  that  "his  teachings  impressed  upon 
the  people  of  Berkshire  political  characteristics  which  remain 
strongly  marked  to  _this  day."18  The  petitions  and  memorials 
which  he  drew  up  to  the  Massachusetts  Assembly  state  his  con- 
victions and  prove  his  earnestness.  On  the  twenty-fifth  of 
December,  1775,  the  town  adopted  a  petition  to  the  General 
Assembly  at  Watertown,  written  by  Allen,  in  which  they  de- 
clared their  "abhorrence  of  that  constitution  now  adopting  in 
this  Province."  The  old  charter  of  King  William  had  been 
"lame  and  essentially  defective",  especially  in  the  appointment 
of  the  governor  by  the  king,  by  which  means  all  manner  of 
disorders  had  been  introduced  into  the  constitution,  one  of  the 
worst  of  which  had  been  the  want  of  the  privilege  of  con- 
fessing judgment  in  case  of  debt.  In  the  present  crisis  they 
had  been  led  to  hope  for  new  privileges  which  they  still  hoped 
to  obtain,  or  remain,  so  far  as  they  had  done  for  some  time 
past,  "in  a  state  of  nature",  and  they  declared  that  they  would 

10  Ibid.,   p.   340.    An   excellent  account   of  this   system   is   given   on  pp.    338-40. 

17  Ibid.,  pp.  336-37.  Morison  says  that  Allen,  "for  his  straight  thinking  on  con- 
stitutional questions,  and  his  great  influence  on  the  movement,  .  .  .  deserves  a 
high  place  in  the  history  of  Massachusetts"  {Manual  for  the  Constitutional  Con- 
vention, 1719,  p.  14).  See  also  Headley,  p.  156. 

"Smith,   p.    342. 


142         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

be  restless  in  their  endeavor  that  they  might  obtain  the  privi- 
lege of  electing  their  civil  and  military  officers.  "If  the  right 
of  nominating  to  office  is  not  vested  in  the  people,"  they  said, 
"we  are  indifferent  who  assumes  it, — whether  any  particular 
persons  on  this  or  the  other  side  of  the  water."  They  asked  that 
a  new  constitution  be  formed  and  hoped  "in  the  establishment 
of  such  new  constitution,  that  regard  will  be  had  for  such  a 
broad  basis  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  as  no  length  of  time 
will  corrupt  as  long  as  the  sun  and  moon  shall  endure."19 

To  make  their  protest  effective  the  court  of  Quarter  Sessions 
was  forbidden  to  hold  any  session.  Not  all  the  towns  were 
agreed  to  this  step,  and  Mr.  Allen,  who  had  been  reading 
Common  Sense,  undertook  to  convince  them.  He  spoke  to  the 
people  of  Richmond  and  to  the  convention  delegates  met  in 
Pittsfield  at  his  summons,  to  such  good  effect  that  "no  court 
was  suffered  to  sit,  and  all  commissions  of  civil  officers  upon 
which  hands  could  be  laid  were  taken  away."20 

Thus  the  rebellion  began.  The  trouble  spread  to  Hampshire 
County  and  the  authorities  were  in  a  quandary.  They  appointed 
a  committee  of  investigation,  but  the  town  of  Pittsfield  sent  on 
May  29,  1776,  an  explanation  of  their  proceedings,  drawn  up 
by  their  pastor.21  They  had  not  until  last  fall,  he  said,  expected 
much  beyond  the  restoration  of  the  charter,  but  now,  believing 
that  it  was  impossible  ever  again  to  be  dependent  upon  England 
and  realizing  that  this  was  the  only  time  that  they  might  ever 
expect  to  have  for  securing  their  liberties  and  the  liberties  of 
future  posterity  "upon  a  permanent  foundation  that  no  length  of 
time  can  undermine",  they  had  with  great  pain  decided  to  sus- 
pend the  courts  again  and  wished  to  present  to  the  legislature 
their  principles  in  what  they  had  done  and  the  objects  they  had 
in  view : 

"We  beg  leave,  therefore,  to  represent  that  we  have  always 
been  persuaded  that  the  people  are  the  fountain  of  power ;  that, 
since  the  dissolution  of  this  power  of  Great  Britain  over  these 
Colonies,  they  have  fallen  into  a  state  of  nature. 

"That  the  first  step  to  be  taken  by  a  people  in  such  a  state 
for  the  enjoyment  or  restoration  of  civil  government  among 

19  The  entire  petition  is  given  by  Smith,  pp.  343-45;  the  original,  in  Allen's  hand- 
writing,  is   in  the   State   archives. 

20  Smith,  p.  347. 

21  The  whole  document  is  given  by  Smith,  pp.  351-54. 


The  Making  of  Constitutions  143 

them  is  the  formation  of  a  fundamental  constitution  as  the 
basis  and  ground-work  of  legislation ;  that  the  approbation,  by 
the  majority  of  the  people,  of  this  fundamental  constitution  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  give  life  and  being  to  it;  that  then,  and 
not  till  then,  is  the  foundation  laid  for  legislation.  .  . 

"What  is  the  fundamental  constitution  of  this  Province? 
What  are  the  inalienable  rights  of  the  people?  the  power  of  the 
rulers?  how  often  to  be  elected  by  the  people,  etc?  Have  any  of 
these  things  been  as  yet  ascertained  ?  Let  it  not  be  said  by  future 
posterity,  that,  in  this  great,  this  noble,  this  glorious  contest, 
we  made  no  provisions  against  tyranny  among  ourselves. 

"We  beg  leave  to  assure  your  Honors,  that  the  purest  and 
most  disinterested  love  of  posterity,  and  the  fervent  desire  of 
transmitting  to  them  a  fundamental  constitution,  securing  to 
them  social  rights  and  immunities  against  all  tyrants  that  may 
spring  up  after  us,  has  moved  us  in  what  we  have  done.  We 
have  not  been  influenced  by  hope  of  gain,  or  expectation  of 
preferment  and  honor ;  we  are  no  discontented  faction ;  we  have 
no  fellowship  with  Tories ;  we  are  the  staunch  friends  of  the 
union  of  these  Colonies,  and  will  support  and  maintain  your 
Honors  in  opposing  Great  Britain  with  our  lives  and  treasure. 
But  even  if  commissions  be  recalled,  and  the  king's  name  struck 
off  them ;  if  the  fee-table  be  reduced  never  so  low,  and  multi- 
tudes of  other  things  be  done  to  still  the  people, — all  is  to  us 
nothing  while  the  foundation  is  unfixed,  the  cornerstone  of 
government  unlaid.  We  have  heard  much  of  government  being 
founded  in  compact :  What  compact  has  been  formed  as  the 
foundation  of  government  in  this  Province?  .  .  . 

"We  beg  leave  to  represent  these  as  the  sentiments  of  by 
far  the  majority  of  the  people  of  this  county,  as  far  as  we  can 
judge.  .  .  Without  an  alteration  in  our  judgment,  the  terrors 
of  this  world  will  not  daunt  us.  We  are  determined  to  resist 
Great  Britain  to  the  last  extremity,  and  all  others  who  may 
claim  a  similar  power  over  us.  Yet  we  hold  not  to  an  imperium 
imperio;  we  will  be  determined  by  the  majority.  .  ." 

In  1777  the  Assembly  ordered  the  courts  to  sit.  Hampshire 
yielded  but  Berkshire  refused  to  do  so  until  a  constitution  was 
actually  adopted.  The  towns  voted  by  large  majorities  against 
it.22  Early  in  1779  the  legislature  passed  a  resolution  of  full 
pardon  ;23  this  was  indignantly  refused  by  Pittsfield,  however, 
which  instructed  its  representative  to  exert  himself  to  the  ut- 

23  Smith,  p.  360. 
33  Ibid.,  pp.   362-63. 


144         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

most  for  its  repeal,  and  directed,  "as  you  are  chosen  to  repre- 
sent the  town  of  Pittsfield,  we  expect  that  you  will  represent 
it  as  a  town  of  a  county  which  has  acted  as  firmly  and  consis- 
tently as  any  county  in  the  State ;  and,  as  you  know  the  senti- 
ments of  the  county,  that  you  act  conformably  thereunto ;  and, 
if  you  are  not  treated  with  the  same  respect  with  representatives 
of  other  counties,  that  you  return  home,  and  give  us  the  pleas- 
ure of  your  company."24  The  original  draft  of  these  blunt 
instructions  is  in  the  handwriting  of  the  indignant  Thomas 
Allen. 

When  the  question  of  a  constitutional  convention  arose  in 
1779  Pittsfield  voted  unanimously  in  its  favor  and  elected  as 
two  of  its  committee  of  instruction  Thomas  Allen  and  the  Bap- 
tist minister  Valentine  Rathbun,  who  had  ably  seconded  Allen 
in  his  exertions.25  In  the  instructions  given,  their  delegate  is 
required  to  demand  a  Bill  of  Rights  which  is  extraordinarily 
comprehensive,  including  a  statement  that  "as  all  men  by  nature 
are  free,  and  have  no  dominion  one  over  another,  and  all  power 
originates  in  the  people,  so,  in  a  state  of  civil  society,  all  power 
is  founded  in  compact ;  that  every  man  has  an  unalienable  right 
to  enjoy  his  own  opinion  in  matters  of  religion,  and  to  worship 
God  .  .  .  without  any  control  whatsoever,  and  that  no  parti- 
cular mode  or  sect  of  religion  ought  to  be  established  .  .  .  that 
no  man  can  be  deprived  of  liberty,  and  subjected  to  perpetual 
bondage  and  servitude,  unless  he  has  forfeited  his  liberty  as  a 
malefactor  .  .  .  that,  as  all  men  are  equal  by  nature,  so,  when 
they  enter  into  a  state  of  civil  government,  they  are  entitled  to 
the  same  rights  and  privileges,  or  to  an  equal  degree  of  political 
happiness.  .  .  .  These  and  all  other  liberties  which  you  find 
essential  to  true  liberty,  you  will  claim,  demand,  and  insist  upon, 
as  the  birthrights  of  this  people."26  He  was  to  endeavor  to  ob- 
tain annual  elections,  constant  attendance  of  representatives  in 
the  House,  utmost  equality  in  taxes,  no  negative  upon  the  voice 

^Ibid.,    pp.    363-64. 

25  Ibid.,    pp.    178,    365. 

28  Ibid.,  pp.  366-67.  Instructions  are  given  in  full  p.  368.  Smith,  says  that  in  the 
original  instructions,  as  drawn  by  the  Committee,  the  delegate  was  to  consent 
to  the  nomination  and  choice  of  Supreme  Court  Judges  by  the  Governor,  Council, 
and  House  of  Representatives.  In  the  copy  attested  by  the  moderator,  this  is 
changed  to  an  election  "by  the  suffrages  of  the  people  at  large".  Mr.  Rathbun  did 
not  sign  the  report  and  Smith  suggests  that  the  change  may  have  been  suggested 
by  him  and  that  Mr.  Allen  was  not  so  radical  as  the  "dominant  sentiment  of 
the  town". 


The  Making  of  Constitutions  145 

of  the  House  of  Representatives, — all  disputed  points  to  be 
settled  by  the  majority  of  the  whole  legislature. 

Although  not  all  these  demands  and  desires  were  met,  the 
County  of  Berkshire  accepted  the  new  constitution  of  1780.27 
For  the  time  the  struggle  in  western  Massachusetts  to  work  out 
their  political  theories  into  actual  practice  and  to  remedy  their 
grievances  was  ended.  In  the  conflict  this  radical  Congregational 
minister  of  the  back  country  and  his  Baptist  colleague  had  car- 
ried their  opposition  to  any  government  other  than  one  founded 
on  a  true  constitutional  basis  with  the  inalienable  rights  of  the 
people  guaranteed,  to  the  extreme  of  aiding  and  abetting  dis- 
obedience to  the  acts  of  a  government  which  they  believed  had 
no  legal  existence.  In  leading  the  opposition  and  in  presenting 
their  arguments  so  ably  and  so  steadfastly  they  played  no  small 
part  in  forcing  the  summoning  of  the  constitutional  convention 
and  in  determining  the  character  of  its  work.  There  is  no  better 
illustration  than  this  of  the  influence  of  the  minister  upon  the 
Revolution. 

To  the  Massachusetts  constitutional  convention  of  1779-1780 
at  least  thirteen  clergymen  were  sent  as  representatives  from 
their  towns,  among  them  the  very  radical  Ebenezer  Chaplin,  of 
Sutton.  Some  of  them  served  on  numerous  committees  of  impor- 
tance. The  Rev.  Noah  Alden,  a  Baptist  of  Bellingham,  was  made 
chairman  of  a  committee  to  reconsider  the  third  article  of  the 
Bill  of  Rights  after  he  had  moved  to  have  that  article  recom- 
mitted.28 The  Rev.  Gad  Hitchcock,  of  Pembroke,  the  Rev. 
Peter  Thacher,  of  Maiden,  the  Rev.  Jonas  Clark,  of  Lexington, 
the  Rev.  Henry  Cummings,  of  Billerica,  and  the  Rev.  Samuel 
West,  of  Dartmouth,  were  of  special  influence,  if  one  may  judge 
by  the  number  and  character  of  the  committees  upon  which  they 
served.29  Hitchcock  and  West  were  members  of  the  committee 
to  draw  up  the  constitution,  and  West  of  that  to  write  the 
address  to  the  people.  Father  West,  as  he  was  called,  is  said 
to  have  had  great  influence.30  Some  were  radical  and  expressed 

» Ibid.,   p.   370. 

28  Journal  of  Convention,  p.  40;  Guild,  Chaplain  Smith,  p.  120,  note.  This  was 
the  article  dealing  with  the  taxation  of  the  people  of  a  town  for  the  support  of 
church  and  pastor.  Alden  was  chairman  and  Rev.  David  Sanford,  of  Medway,  a 
member  of  this  committee  of  seven.  See  Jameson,  History  of  Medway,  pp.  57-58, 
124,   426,    for   account   of    Sanford. 

29  Journal  of   Convention.  For   other   clerical   members,   see  pp.    8-19,   41,    171. 

30  Ibid.,  pp.  26-29,  130;  Sprague,  VIII.  38-41.  Several  of  these,  as  well  as  other 
clergymen,  were  members  of  the  convention  to  ratify  the  Federal  constitution,  and 
West  is  said   to   have  had   much   influence  then  over   Hancock. 


146         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

themselves  forcibly  in  the  convention.  The  Rev.  Peter  Thacher 
pleaded  eloquently  that  the  office  of  governor  should  be  done 
away  with,  and  after  that  was  decided  against  him  that  at  least 
the  executive  should  not  be  given  the  aristocratic  title  of  Ex- 
cellency.31 

When  the  time  came  to  vote  on  the  constitution  of  1780, 
again  the  ministers  played  their  part.  Many  served  on  com- 
mittees for  report  and  discussion.32  A  delightfully  simple  ac- 
count is  that  of  the  Rev.  Ebenezer  Parkman,  of  Westborough. 
He  was  at  that  time  seventy-seven  years  old  and  had  not  at- 
tended the  town-meeting  of  May  22,  1780,  which  was  to  discuss 
the  constitution.  But  three  men  from  "ye  Town  Meeting" 
waited  upon  him  to  beg  him  to  "pray  with  ym  &  give  ym  my 
Advice,  they  being  assembled  upon  ye  very  important  Affair  of 
ye  Plan  of  Government."33  So  the  old  man  went  with  them,  and 
joined  them  in  discussing  and  voting  upon  each  article  of  the 
constitution.  He  strenuously  insisted  that  the  governor  should 
be  not  only  a  Christian  but  a  Protestant  and  finally  prevailed 
upon  all  but  two  of  those  present  to  vote  the  insertion  of  the 
word.  For  several  days  he  assisted  in  drawing  up  the  reply  to 
the  convention  and  later  in  September  he  was  again  asked  by 
the  town  to  meet  with  them  to  vote  for  the  new  governor.  When 
the  new  government  went  into  operation  he  wrote  in  his  diary : 
"We  esteem  this  ye  Day  of  ye  Commencement  of  ye  honorable 
Revolution,  The  New  Constitution  of  Government  now  begins 
The  Election  of  Governor  &c.  It  is  exceedingly  to  be  desired 
and  prayed  for,  y1  ye  minds  of  ye  People  were  properly  affected 
with  ye  great  Importance  of  this  so  unexampled  Time!  direct 
ye  weighty  Affairs  of  it  and  grant  an  happy  Issue  to  His  Glory 
and  ye  Public  Weal  !"34 

In  the  May  of  that  important  year  the  Rev.  Samuel  Cooper 
was  chosen  Election  preacher  and  his  sermon  was  considered 
so  eloquent  and  of  such  importance  that  it  was  translated  into 
foreign  languages  and  printed  in  the  same  volume  as  the  Massa- 
chusetts constitution.35  When  the  first  election  sermon  under 

31  Sprague,  I.  720-21. 

32  See  Appendix. 

33  Parkman,  Diary,  pp.  236-37.  In  the  meeting  to  elect  the  governor,  his  vote 
was  the  only  one  out  of  sixty-two  to  be  cast  for  James  Bowdoin. 

Zilbid.,   pp.  239,  265,  280. 

35  E.  E.  Hale,  The  Centennial  of  the  Constitution,  p.  3 :  "The  discourse  itself 
was   received    with    enthusiasm.    It    was    read    in    Europe    with    profound    interest, — 


The  Making  of  Constitutions  147 

the  new  government  was  to  be  preached,  the  Rev.  Jonas  Clark 
was  chosen.  A  wiser  choice  could  not  have  been  made.  Once 
again  this  political  philosopher  stated  the  great  principles  of 
government  in  which  he  believed  and  for  which  he  had  worked. 
It  is  a  noble  document,  ringing  with  sincerity  and  profound 
conviction.  Again  the  social  compact  was  exalted  as  God's  own 
way  of  establishing  government.  By  common  consent  only,  said 
Clark,  could  it  be  amended,  but  by  common  consent  it  could 
at  any  time  be  altered  or  dissolved.  Equality  and  independence 
he  declared  the  just  claim,  the  indefeasible  birthright  of  men. 
"Nothing  short  of  them,"  he  said,  "ever  had  or  ever  would 
satisfy  a  man  or  a  people  truly  free — truly  brave."  His  closing 
words  rang  eloquent:  "these  colonies  hesitated  not  a  moment, 
but  .  .  .  greatly  dared  to  be  free !  .  .  .  God  .  .  .  hath  .  .  . 
given  us  a  name  among  the  nations  of  the  earth.  .  .  .  All  may 
yet  be  lost,  if  we  rise  not  as  one  man  to  the  noble  cause.  .  .  . 
Forbid  it,  righteous  Heaven!  .  .  ,"36 

The  New  Hampshire  movement,  similar  to  that  of  western 
Massachusetts,  which  had  its  part  in  the  formation  of  the  con- 
stitution of  New  Hampshire,  centered  in  the  so-called  New 
Hampshire  Grants  on  both  sides  of  the  Connecticut  River  and 
especially  in  Hanover  and  Dartmouth  College.  Grafton  County 
had  been  recently  settled  and,  to  a  large  extent,  by  men  of 
eastern,  "New  Light"  Connecticut.  The  very  names  of  Connec- 
ticut are  repeated :  Lyme,  Plainfield,  Lebanon,  Windham,  He- 
bron, Enfield,  Canaan,  etc.37  These  men  had  come  from  towns 
where  "Separates"  had  been  fighting  for  exemption  from  taxes 
to  support  pastors  and  churches  not  their  own.  Among  them 
was  Elisha  Paine,  of  Plainfield,  the  son  of  the  great  "Separ- 
ate" minister  of  Canterbury.38  There  were  among  them  men  of 
education  and  of  means.  All  believed  in  the  election  of  their 

with  such  interest,  I  think,  as  awaited  no  other  American  document  of  that  time, 
excepting  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  It  was  translated  into  most  of  the 
important  languages  of  Europe."  Franklin,  Writings,  ed.,  Smyth,  VIII.  256-57, 
says  it  was  much  admired  in  France.  Franklin  wished  it  printed  at  Geneva,  with 
the  Massachusetts  constitution.  Swift,  "Massachusetts  Election  Sermons",  Mass.  Col. 
Soc.  Pub.  I.  428,  says  it  was  translated  into  Dutch  and  put  into  a  collection  of 
documents  from  the  thirteen  United   States  of  America. 

36  Hudson,  History  of  Lexington,  pp.  339-41,  gives  much  of  this  sermon.  For 
extracts,   see  Appendix. 

37  See  Lawrence,  New  Hampshire  Churches,  pp.  432,  539,  549-50,  565;  Lamed, 
History  of  Windham  County,  Connecticut,  p.  77;  Chase,  History  of  Dartmouth 
College,  I.  422;  Stackpole,  History  of  New  Hampshire,  II.  157-58,  says  they  were 
radical,  and  believed  in  manhood  suffrage. 

38  Lamed,  pp.  71-72,  77. 


148        The  Nezv  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

own  officials  and  in  the  town  as  the  unit  of  government.  Han- 
over, where  the  Rev.  Eleazar  Wheelock,  of  Lebanon,  Connec- 
ticut, had  recently  established  Dartmouth  College,  whose  stu- 
dents and  teachers  were  largely  Connecticut  men,39  was  the 
intellectual  center  of  the  country,  and  the  young  Dartmouth 
the  only  institution  of  higher  learning  in  the  state. 

The  towns  on  both  sides  of  the  Connecticut  River  had  been 
incorporated  under  special  grants  given  by  Governor  Wentworth 
and  had  never  been  represented  in  the  Assembly,  although  they 
had  asked  for  representation.  In  1774,  for  example,  the  people 
of  Hanover  had  petitioned,  saying  that  they  regarded  repre- 
sentation as  an  inestimable  privilege,  inseparable  from  taxation 
and  inherent  in  the  British  constitution.40  The  Assembly  was 
unfriendly,  however.  The  government  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
seaboard  towns  and  the  Assembly  was  afraid  of  extending 
representation  to  the  back  country.  In  1775  forty-three  towns 
were  represented,  while  about  one  hundred  were  not.41  To  the 
college  the  legislature  seemed  especially  unfriendly.  It  would 
not  permit  the  institution  to  organize  as  a  separate  township, 
would  not  make  roads  in  its  neighborhood,  never  gave  for  its 
support  more  than  five  hundred  pounds.42 

When  the  Fourth  Provincial  Congress  was  called  in  May 
1775,  the  towns  of  Grafton  and  Cheshire  county  responded, 
each  town  which  could  afford  it  sending  one  delegate.  It  was 
to  this  congress  that  nine  clergymen  were  sent  by  various 
towns.43  The  act  of  November  14th,  arranging  for  election  to 
the  next  congress,  was  very  unfavorable  to  the  Connecticut 
valley  towns,  many  of  the  small  towns  being  grouped  together, 
the  Hanover  group  being  entirely  unrepresented,  and  the  con- 
trol again  in  the  hands  of  the  east.  On  December  5th,  Wheelock 
wrote :  "We  are  in  a  State  of  Nature,  the  Constitution  thrown 
out  of  Doors."44 

In  the  next  congress,  whether  because  of  discontent  with  the 
method  of  representation  or  because  of  poverty  and  the  war,  not 

39  Wheelock  was  himself  a  prominent  "New  Light,"  a  friend  of  Elisha  Williams, 
whose  Seasonable  Plea  has  been  quoted,  of  Benjamin  Pomeroy,  etc.  A  number  of 
the  students  and  graduates  of  the  college  had  been  born  in  Windham  County,  Con- 
necticut. 

40  MS  Letter,  no.  774900.5  (D.  C.  L.). 

41  Stackpole,  History  of  New  Hampshire,  II.   157. 

42  MS  Letter,  no.   775209   (D.   C.   L.);  Chase,   I.  271-77. 

43  Provincial  Papers,   N.   H.,   VII.    468-70,    668.    See   below   Appendix. 
"MS  Letter,  no.  775651,   (D.  C.  L.);   Chase,  I.   423-25. 


The  Making  of  Constitutions  149 

so  many  towns  were  represented.  It  was  this  Assembly  that 
on  the  fifth  of  January,  1776,  "took  up  civil  government"  and 
adopted  a  temporary  constitution,  by  which  representatives 
were  to  be  chosen,  not  one  from  each  town  but  by  a  method 
of  grouping  which  gave  the  eastern,  longer  settled,  and  more 
populous  towns  a  large  majority  of  delegates.45  The  Council 
was  not  to  be  elected  at  large ;  instead  five  were  to  be  chosen 
in  the  county  of  Rockingham,  two  in  Hillsborough,  two  in 
Strafford,  two  in  Cheshire,  and  one  in  Grafton,  again  giving 
the  majority  to  the  east.46  Moreover,  the  representatives  and 
councillors  were  to  be  limited  to  men  having  real  estate  to  the 
value  of  two  hundred  pounds.47 

In  July  1776,  delegates  from  the  dissatisfied  towns  involved 
met  at  College  Hall,  Hanover,  and  began  an  agitation  against  the 
government  which  lasted  until  1784.  Although  of  great  interest, 
the  details  of  the  struggle,  the  refusal  to  pay  taxes,  the  tem- 
porary union  with  Vermont,  the  attempt  to  establish  a  new 
state  with  its  capital  at  Hanover,  the  ultimate  reunion  of  the 
towns  east  of  the  Connecticut  with  New  Hampshire,  must  be 
passed  over.48  The  significant  facts  for  this  study  are  rather 
the  part  played  by  the  clergy,  the  arguments  presented  so  force- 
fully and  the  influence  of  the  movement  upon  the  new  consti- 
tution. 

It  is  hard  to  tell  how  far  the  ministers  were  responsible  for 
the  agitation.  Their  enemies  believed  that  the  whole  movement 
was  due  to  the  ambition  of  Wheelock  and  his  friends  for  polit- 
ical power  and  their  desire  to  have  Hanover  the  capital  either 
of  New  Hampshire  or  of  a  new  state  formed  from  the  new 
towns  on  both  sides  of  the  Connecticut.49  There  was  even  a 
suggestion  now  and  then  that  the  British  were  back  of  the 
trouble.50  Wheelock  himself  tried  to  seem  neutral,  but  the  term 
"College  Party"  was  used  continually  and  certainly  Wheelock 
must  have  known  and  approved  and  to  some  extent  have  guided 

45  Stackpole,   p.    161. 

48  Provincial  &  State  Papers,   N.   H.,   X.   232. 

47  Ibid.,  pp.  235-36. 

48  For  details,  see  J.  L.  Rice,  "The  New  Hampshire  Grants,"  in  Mag.  Amer. 
Hist.,  VIII.  Rice,  p.  12,  says  the  greatest  influence  of  the  college  lay  to  the 
west  of  the  river.  He  believes  the  college  intended  from  the  beginning  to  make 
Hanover  the  capital  of  a  larger  state.   See  also  Chase,  I. 

49  State  Papers  Vermont  Controversy,  pp.  235-37,  241;  Weare  Papers,  no.  105; 
Chase,  I.   445-46. 

50  State   Papers   Vermont   Controversy,   pp.    209,   237. 


150         The  Neiv  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

the  movement.51  The  leaders  were  men  closely  associated  with 
the  college.  The  College  Hall  was  frequently  the  meeting  place 
of  delegates  from  the  towns  of  Grafton  and  Cheshire  counties, 
and  it  was  from  College  Hall  that  the  memorial  went  which  was 
accepted  by  the  towns  as  best  expressing  their  protest.52  Meshech 
Weare,  President  of  the  Council,  attributed  the  initiation  of  the 
movement  to  the  College.  "I  enclose  you,"  he  wrote  to  the  dele- 
gates at  Exeter  in  December  1776,  "an  Address  of  Several 
Towns  in  the  County  of  Grafton  to  the  people  at  large  (fabri- 
cated I  suppose  at  Dartmouth  College)  and  calculated  to  stir 
up  Contention  &  animosities  among  us  at  this  difficult  time; 
Especially  as  our  Government  is  only  temporary  &  the  state  of 
matters  not  allowing  a  Revisal.  However  this  Pamphlet  with 
the  assiduity  of  the  College  Gentlemen  has  had  such  an  effect 
that  almost  the  whole  County  of  Grafton  if  not  the  whole,  have 
refused  to  send  members  to  the  new  Assembly,  which  is  to 
meet  next  Wednesday."53  Chase  attributes  the  College  Hall 
Address  of  July  1776,  as  well  as  that  of  October  1776,  to  Beza- 
leel  Woodward,  professor  in  the  college  and  son-in-law  of 
Wheelock,  and  says  that  they  were  "widely  circulated  and  pro- 
duced a  profound  impression."54 

These  addresses  and  the  reasons  given  by  the  towns  for  theii 
refusal  to  send  delegates  are  among  the  most  interesting  of  Rev- 
olutionary documents.  They  bristle  with  the  assertion  of  natural 
rights ;  they  declare  the  towns  in  a  state  of  nature,  demand  a 
constitutional  convention  and  a  bill  of  rights,  assert  the  right 
of  each  town  to  its  own  representative,  refuse  to  listen  to  such 
methods  of  electing  a  council,  question  the  wisdom  of  having 
any  council  at  all,  and  declare  that  any  man,  whether  possessed 
of  two  hundred  pounds  or  not,  should  have  the  right  to  sit  as 
representative.  The  defiance  of  these  little  towns  and  their  utter 
faith  in  the  truth  of  their  theories  is  amazing.  The  memorial 
begins : 

"The  important  Crisis  is  now  commenced  wherein  the  provi- 
dence of  God ;  the  Grand  Continental  Congress ;  and  our  neces- 
sitous circumstances,  call  upon  us  to  assume  our  natural  right 

61  Chase,  I.  445  ff.  Wheelock  had  sided  with  settlers  west  of  the  river  in  the 
earlier  controversy  with  New  York  and  tried  to  have  land  "receded  back  to  New 
Hampshire"    (pp.    435    ff.   and  New    Hampshire    State    Papers,    VIII.  314). 

52  That  of  July,  1776.  See  Provincial  and  State  Papers,  N.  H.,  X.  229-35. 

63  Ibid.,    X.  228. 

H  Chase,    I.  426,    note. 


The  Making  of  Constitutions  151 

of  laying  a  foundation  of  civil  Government  within  and  for  this 
Colony.  .  .  We  think  it  of  the  utmost  importance,  that  every 
inhabited  town  have  the  liberty,  if  they  please,  of  electing  one 
member,  at  least,  to  make  up  the  legislative  body — As  it  may  be 
much  questioned,  if  any  one  distinct  corporate  body  be  neglected, 
or  deprived  of  actual  representation,  whether,  in  that  case,  they 
are  any  ways  bound,  or  included  by  what  the  others  may  do : 
Certainly,  if  they  are  considered  in  a  state  of  nature,  they  are 
not.  No,  not  even  an  individual  person.  But  suppose  it  should  be 
thought  prudent  at  any  time,  by  the  legislative  body,  to  restrict, 
or  lessen  the  number  of  representatives ;  it  is  absolutely  neces- 
sary that  the  whole  should  be  active  in  the  matter,  in  order  to 
surrender  their  privileges  in  this  case,  as  they  cannot  be  cur- 
tailed without.  .  .  .  We  readily  agree,  that  it  is  a  thousand 
pities,  that  when  we  are  engaged  in  a  bloody  contest,  merely  to 
oppose  arbitrary  power  without  us,  we  should  have  occasion  to 
contend  against  the  same  within  ourselves ;  especially  by  those 
who  profess  to  be  friends  of  liberty.  ...  As  for  ourselves,  we 
are  determined  not  to  spend  our  blood  and  treasure,  in  defend- 
ing against  the  chains  and  fetters,  that  are  forged  and  prepared 
for  us  abroad,  in  order  to  purchase  some  of  the  like  kind  of  our 
own  manufacturing. — But  mean  to  hold  them  alike  detest- 
able. .  ,"55 

Several  meetings  were  held  in  Hanover  at  College  Hall,  and 
the  towns  sent  resolves  to  the  legislature  stating  that  they 
accepted  the  above  address  and  giving  therein  reasons  for  their 
refusal  to  send  delegates.  On  November  27,  1776,  the  town- 
meeting  at  Hanover  voted  unanimously:  ".  .  .  That  we  will 
not  give  in  our  Votes  for  a  Counseller  as  directed.  .  .  .  Because 
we  can  see  no  important  end  proposed  by  their  creation,  unless 
to  negative  the  proceedings  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
which  we  humbly  conceive  ought  not  to  be  done  in  a  free 
state.  .  .  ,"56  Acworth,  December  9,  1776,  voted:  ".  .  .  we 
think  every  lawful  elector  is  a  subject  to  be  elected.  .  .  ,"57 
Chesterfield,  which  had  sent  a  representative,  instructed  him 
thus  on  December  12,  1776 :  "We  can  by  no  means  imagine  our- 
selves so  far  lost  to  a  sense  of  the  natural  rights  and  immunities 
of  ourselves  and  our  fellow-men,  as  to  imagine  that  the  State 
can  be  either  safe  or  happy  under  a  Constitution  formed  with- 

55  Provincial  and  State  Papers.  N.  H.,  X.  229-35. 
50  Ibid.,  X.  236-37. 
"Ibid.,  X.  238. 


152         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

out  the  knowledge  or  particular  authority  of  a  great  part  of  its 
inhabitants  .  .  .  you  are  .  .  .  to  exert  yourself  to  the  utmost 
to  procure  a  redress  of  the  afore-mentioned  grievances,  and  in 
case  they  will  not  comply,  to  return  home  for  further  instruc- 
tions."58 At  a  meeting  of  Haverhill,  Lyman,  Bath,  Gunthwait, 
Landaff  and  Morristown,  December  13,  1776,  they  refused  to 
elect  a  representative  or  to  send  in  a  vote  for  Councillor  be- 
cause ".  .  .  it  is  our  humble  opinion,  that  when  the  Declaration 
of  Independency  took  place,  the  colonies  were  absolutely  in  a 
state  of  nature,  and  the  powers  of  government  reverted  to  the 
people  at  large.  .  ,"59  And  so  it  went,  each  town  asserting  the 
same  rights  in  different  phraseology. 

The  many  documents  repeated  these  arguments  unceasingly, 
and  the  towns  grew  more  defiant  and  more  determined  to  have 
the  principles  of  government  in  which  they  believed  put  into 
effect.60  In  1777  an  address  of  the  United  Committees  signed 
by  Woodward,  as  clerk,  declared  they  were  ready  to  resist 
Great  Britain  or  any  other  who  wanted  to  subject  them  to  a 
state  inconsistent  with  their  natural  and  inherent  rights,  and 
shortly  thereafter  Hanover  gave  instructions  to  Woodward 
(which  are  in  his  handwriting)  concurring  in  this  address  and 
approving  the  position  taken  in  an  anonymous  democratic  pam- 
phlet of  the  time,  The  People  the  best  Governors,  which  seems 
to  have  had  much  influence.61 

Certain  of  the  eastern  towns,  notably  Portsmouth,  realized 
that  the  western  counties  had  real  grievances  and  advised  the 
legislature  to  redress  them,  but  nothing  was  done  for  some 
time.  At  last,  in  1778,  a  constitutional  convention  was  called, 
but  the  old  method  of  representation  was  retained  and  the  con- 
stitution was  rejected.  In  1781  the  Assembly  decided  on  a  new 
constitutional  convention  to  be  chosen  more  in  accordance  with 

58  Provincial  and  State  Papers.  N.  H.,  X.   240. 

69  Ibid. ;  the  paper  is  supposed  to  have  been  written  by  Woodward.  Other  me- 
morials, petitions,  and  resolves  of  the  towns  are  given  in  Town  Papers,  N.  H.,  XI. 
23-24;  XII.  57:  "Ye  Code  of  Laws  made  on  that  system  are  of  ye  same  tenure  of 
those  we  have  Revolted  from  and  for  that  reason  we  are  Spilling  our  Blood  and 
treasure  for  nothing."  (New  Grantham).  See  also  XII.  573-74;  XIII.  69,  282, 
762-65. 

63  Several  of  them  refused  to  pay  taxes  and  raised  what  money  they  needed 
for  their  own  use.   See  Weare  Papers,   IV,  no.  209;   Chase,  I.  459. 

MWeare  Papers,  IV,  no.  35;  Chase,  I.  452;  MS  777211  (D.  C.  L.).  Cf.  article 
by  H.  A.  Cushing,  Amer.  Hist.  Rev.,  I.  284-87.  See  Town  Papers,  N.  H.,  XIII. 
762-64,  for  meetings  in  June,  1777;  Chase,  I.  458  ff.,  for  later  circulars.  A  circular 
sent  out  by  the  College  in  Jan.  1777,  the  MS  of  which  is  in  the  handwriting  of 
John  Wheelock,  is  quoted  in  part  in  Appendix. 


The  Making  of  Constitutions  153 

the  demands  of  the  "college  party".62  The  constitution  drawn 
up  was  twice  rejected,  but  after  modifications  was  finally  ac- 
cepted and  went  into  effect  in  1784.  Neither  Hanover  nor  Dres- 
den, as  the  college  district  was  then  called,  had  any  part  in 
making  it,  and  many  of  the  democratic  ideas  of  the  western 
towns  did  not  carry.  The  union  with  Vermont  and  the  later 
effort  to  found  a  separate  state  had  lessened  their  influence.63 

The  motives  behind  the  revolt  of  the  western  towns  are  hard 
to  determine  and  to  estimate.  It  is  possible  that  a  desire  to 
enhance  the  value  of  land  along  the  river  may  have  had  some- 
thing to  do  with  it.64  Certainly  the  ambition  to  increase  the 
importance  of  the  college  played  a  large  part.  The  natural  inde- 
pendence of  the  frontier  and  its  distrust  of  the  older  commercial 
towns  must  be  taken  into  account.  However  complex  the  mo- 
tives, there  seems  little  reason  to  doubt  the  sincerity  of  the 
belief  in  the  old  theories  of  compact  and  natural  rights  and  in 
the  determination  to  carry  them  into  effect,  or  to  doubt  that  it 
was  the  ministers  of  the  college  district  who  initiated  and  led 
the  movement.  The  agitation  at  least  hastened  the  calling  of  a 
constitutional  convention  and  to  some  extent  influenced  the 
character  of  the  constitution  which  was  finally  adopted. 

Thus  in  both  New  Hampshire  and  Massachusetts,  but  especi- 
ally the  latter,  the  ministers  played  a  larger  and  more  direct 
part  in  determining  the  character  of  the  new  institutions  than 
has  been  realized.  This  is  especially  significant  in  view  of  the 
long  years  through  which  they  had  been  preaching  the  under- 
lying philosophy. 

82  Chase,    I.  491. 

63  Town  Papers,  N.  H.,  IX,  Appendix,  gives  details  about  the  Conventions.  The 
town  and  the  college  separated  in  1779;  the  college  was  more  radical  than  the 
town.  Of  5,760  acres,  Wheelock,  his  family,  and  the  college  owned  4,000  (Chase, 
I.  459-63). 

91  Memoirs  of  Wheelock,  p.  303. 


Chapter  XI 
VARIED  SERVICES  DURING  THE  WAR 

If  any  proof  were  needed  of  the  sincerity  of  the  support 
given  the  radicals  by  the  evangelical  clergy  of  New  England, 
one  would  need  only  to  study  their  deeds  both  before  and  dur- 
ing the  war.  Many  of  them  served  as  chaplains,  some  for  long 
periods,  even  when  they  had  to  pay  more  for  their  substitutes 
than  they  themselves  received ;  some  fought  and  fought  well  in 
single  battles  or  campaigns ;  some  did  good  service  in  recruiting 
men  for  the  army  or  in  keeping  discouraged  and  weary  soldiers 
from  returning  home;  many  gave  freely  of  their  scant  sub- 
stance and  by  their  glowing  sermons  kept  up  the  courage  of 
those  at  home;  some  used  their  skill  in  describing  battles  and 
campaigns ;  others  served  in  less  usual  ways. 

Beginning  with  1767  and  continuing  throughout  the  war  the 
ministers  did  all  in  their  power  to  encourage  the  non-importa- 
tion agreements  and  home  manufactures.  There  are  many  in- 
stances in  each  of  the  New  England  colonies  of  all-day  spin- 
ning bees  held  in  the  rooms  and  on  the  lawns  of  the.  minister's 
home.1  Frequently  before  the  end  of  the  day  the  minister  would 
address  the  women  and  girls  on  the  issues  of  the  time.  From 
the  pulpit  also  they  urged  careful  observance  of  the  non-impor- 

1Thos.  Waters,  Ipswich  in  the  Massachusetts  Bay  Colony,  II.  299;  in  1769,  77 
women  spun  all  day  in  the  home  of  Rev.  John  Cleaveland.  Afterward  he  preached 
to  them  and  told  them  how  they  "might  recover  to  this  Country  the  full  and  free 
Enjoyment  of  all  our  Rights,  Properties  and  Privileges  (which  is  more  than  the 
others  have  been  able  to  do)  and  so  have  the  Honor  of  building  not  only  -their 
own  but  the  houses  of  many  Thousands  and  perhaps  prevent  the  Ruin  of  the 
whole  British  empire."  He  urged  living  upon  the  produce  of  the  country,  not 
using  any  foreign  teas,  nor  wearing  clothes  of  foreign  manufacture  {Essex  Gazette, 
June  27,  1769).  In  Newport  in  1771  at  the  home  of  Rev.  Mr.  Hopkins,  a  "new  and 
ingenious  Construction",  was  used,  "so  calculated  that  near  twice  as  much  as  on  the 
common  Wheel  may  be  spun  in  the  same  space  of  Time"  {Boston  News-Letter 
Supplement,  June  20,  1771).  I  have  from  Boston  Chronicle,  News-Letter,  Essex 
Gasette,  Massachusetts  Spy,  N.  Eng.  Hist.  &  Geneal  Register,  and  one  or 
two  town  histories,  alone,  32  examples  either  of  such  all  day  spinning  parties  or 
of  large  quanities  of  yarn  or  cloth  presented  to  the  minister;  20  of  these  are  be- 
tween 1767  and  1770.  Boston  News-Letter,  June  15,  1769  speaks  also  of  many 
others  in  various  provinces;  6  in  1770-1774,  6  after  1774.  See  J.  Lathrop,  Artillery 
Sermon,  1774,  p.  29,  note,  urging  home  manufacture  of  clothes.  "The  Lord  of 
providence  has  put  a  price  into  our  hands,  and  if  we  are  not  greatly  wanting  to  our- 
selves, we  may  be  free,  we  may  be  rich,  we  may  be  the  most  powerful  people  under 
the  heavens.  It  is  to  be  wished  that  societies  were  formed  in  all  the  principal 
cities  and  towns  on  the  continent  for  the  encouragement  of  agriculture  and  manu- 
factures." 

[154] 


Varied  Services  during  the  War  155 

tation  agreements.  One  good  clergyman  during  the  war  felt  so 
keenly  the  need  of  clothes  for  the  soldiers  at  Quebec  that  he 
excused  the  women  of  the  town  from  afternoon  service  and  set 
them  all  to  spinning  on  the  Sabbath  day.2  The  power  of  their 
influence  in  this  respect  is  attested  by  Englishman  and  Tory. 
"Mr.  Otis's  black  Regiment,  the  dissenting  Clergy,"  said  Oliver, 
"were  also  set  to  Work,  to  preach  up  Manufactures  instead  of 
Gospel — they  preached  about  it  &  about  it,  untill  the  Women  & 
Children,  both  within  Doors  &  without,  set  their  Spinning  Wheel 
a  whirling  in  Defiance  of  Great  Britain :  the  female  Spinners 
kept  on  spinning  for  6  Days  of  the  Week;  &  on  the  seventh, 
the  Parsons  took  their  Turns,  &  spun  out  their  Prayers  & 
Sermons  to  a  long  Thread  of  Politicks,  &  to  much  better 
Profit  than  the  other  Spinners ;  for  they  generally  cloathed  the 
Parson  and  his  Family  with  the  Produce  of  their  Labor — 
this  was  a  new  Species  of  Enthusiasm,  &  might  be  justly  termed, 
the  Enthusiasm  of  the  Spinning  Wheel."3 

In  this  matter  the  ministers  showed  knowledge  of  human 
nature  by  arousing  competition  between  town  and  town  and 
between  churches  in  the  same  town,  and  even  between  married 
and  unmarried  women,  as  well  as  by  making  the  whole  affair  a 
great  social  occasion  through  having  the  men  come  to  supper 
and  join  in  an  evening  of  fun  with  music  and  singing  of  songs 
written  by  the  Sons  of  Liberty.4  Often  many  spectators  came 
from  town  and  country  to  view  the  spinning  and  thus,  as  well 
as  through  sermons  and  newspaper  articles,  the  non-importation 
idea  spread.5  Even  after  the  merchants  grew  tired  of  their  agree- 
1  ments  and  decided  to  resume  trade,  the  "independent  priests" 
livere  linked,  by  the  hostile  press,  with  the  politicians  and  smug- 
glers in  keeping  alive  the  movement.6 

Many  of  the  clergy  supported  vigorously  the  Solemn  League 
and  Covenant  of  1774.7  On  June  7,  1774,  the  Rev.  John  Cleave- 
land,  of   Ipswich,   writing  as  usual  under  the  pseudonym  of 

2  Judah  Champion,  of  Litchfield.  He  read  from  the  pulpit  of  the  taking  of  St. 
Johns  and  of  the  suffering  of  the  Army  in  the  cold  northern  winter;  then  afer 
service  gave  his  permission  for  every  woman  and  girl  to  go  to  her  spinning;  Cen- 
tennial Papers   General   Conference  of   Connecticut,  pp.    58-59. 

3  Oliver,  Origin  and  Progress  of  the  American  Rebellion,  p.   88. 

4  Boston  News-Letter,  July   6,    1769. 

5  Ibid.,  Dec,  2,  1768,  June  15,  and  July  6,  1769. 

9  Essex  Gazette,  Mar.  19,  1771,  quotes  from  an  article  in  the  London  Gazette  and 
New  Daily   Advertiser,   Nov.    30,    1770. 

''Massachusetts  Gazette   &  Boston  Post-Boy,   July    18,  1774;   Boston  News-Letter, 

Oct.    13,   1774;   Essex  Gazette,  June   7,    1774;   and   other  papers   of   the   day.    . 


156         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

"Johannis  in  Eremo",  advised  that  the  names  of  all  merchants 
in  the  seaport  towns  who  refused  to  enter  the  covenant  be  pub- 
lished so  that  the  country  towns  might  have  no  dealings  with 
them.8  Oliver  tells  of  one  country  minister  who  attended  the 
town  meeting  held  in  the  church,  sat  himself  down  at  the  com- 
munion table  and  roundly  declared  that  no  one  who  failed  to 
support  the  Covenant  was  fit  to  come  to  the  sacred  table.  Cer- 
tain of  the  Boston  clergy,  he  says,  traveled  to  the  country  towns, 
creeping  into  houses  and  leading  captive  silly  men  and  women.9 
There  were  also  a  number  of  ministers  who  wrote  frequently 
for  the  newspapers  as  well  as  some  who  worked  quietly  behind 
the  mask  of  more  popular  names.  Such  were  Dr.  Samuel  Cooper 
who  is  said  to  have  written  Hancock's  fifth  of  March  oration,10 
and  the  Rev.  John  Adams,  of  Durham,  New  Hampshire,  who 
aided  Sullivan,  his  intimate  friend.11  The  statesman  minister, 
Dr.  Samuel  Cooper,  gave  most  distinguished  service  of  an  un- 
usual kind  all  through  the  war.  He  who  knew  much  of  the 
heart  of  Samuel  Adams,12  and  was  the  intimate  friend  of  Benja- 
min Franklin  realized,  as  perhaps  few  other  clergymen,  the 
vital  importance  of  the  French  alliance.  He  received  in  his  home 
and  in  many  ways  assisted  the  French  generals  and  others  who 
came  to  x\merica  during  the  war.  There  they  met  and  talked  with 

8  Essex  Gazette,  June   7,   1774. 

9  Oliver,  The  Origin  and  Progress  of  the  American  Rebellion,  pp.  147-48,  151: 
"Neither  their  Cloaths,  their  Shoes,  or  their  Throats  are  as  yet  worn  out;  the 
Faction  deceived  them;  they  have  helped  to  deceive  the  People." 

10  Wm.  Bentley,  Diary,  I.  52;  not  only  this  but  other  papers  of  Hancock  are 
commonly  ascribed  to  him.  In  1783  he  was  called  by  Samuel  Dexter  "The  Prime 
Minister"  (Bowdoin  and  Temple  Papers,  Pt.  II,  p.  29) ;  he  was  hated  by  Loyal- 
ists. See  Winsor,  Memorial  History  of  Boston,  III.  123-24;  Sprague,  I.  442-43; 
Moore,  Diary  of  the  Revolution,  I.  136;  Tudor,  Life  of  James  Otis,  pp.  152-53; 
Sabin,  IV.  516.  On  Apr.  3,  1776,  S.  Adams  wrote  to  Cooper:  "I  wish  your  Leisure 
would  admit  of  your  frequently  favoring  me  with  your  Thoughts  of  our  publick 
Affairs.  I  do  assure  you  I  shall  make  use  of  them,  as  far  as  my  Ability  shall  extend, 
to  the  Advantage  of  our  Country."  Cf.  S.  Adams,  Writings,  III.  273,  303;  IV.  106, 
108,  123,  148,  etc.  Franklin,  Writings,  ed.  Smyth,  VII.  407;  VIII.  183,  256,  etc. 
Washington  was  told  by  the  Mass.  delegates  in  1775  that  among  various  others 
he  could  also  rely  on  Drs.  Cooper,  Chauncey  and  Langdon.  Cf.  Writings  of  Wash- 
ington, ed.   Sparks,   III.  20. 

11  Stackpole,  History  of  New  Hampshire,  II.  70-71.  Among  others  were  Rev.  Wm. 
Gordon,  of  Roxbury  (see  J.  Buckingham,  Specimens  of  Newspaper  Literature,  I.  215; 
Tyler,  Literary  History  of  the  American  Revolution,  II.  423-28) ;  Rev.  Joseph  Ly- 
man, of  Hatfield  (L.  Coleman,  Genealogy  of  the  Lyman  family,  pp.  179-80) ;  Rev. 
Thos.  Allen,  of  Pittsfield,  especially  in  Connecticut  Courant  (see  Smith,  History  of 
Pittsfield,  and  later  references) ;  Rev.  Jeremy  Belknap,  of  Dover,  N.  H.  (Sprague, 
VIII.  75;  G.  B.  Spalding,  The  Dover  Pulpit  during  the  Revolutionary  War;  Farmer 
and  Moore,  Coll.  Topog.,  Hist,  and  Biog.,  I.  39)  ;  Rev.  Samuel  Cooper  (Sprague,  I. 
442;  Tyler,  Literary  History  of  the  American  Revolution,  II.  302-06);  Rev.  John 
Cleaveland  for  many  years  in  Essex  Gazette;  Rev.  Zabdiel  Adams,  and  others;  some 
writing  under  pseudonyms  hard  to  run  down. 


Varied  Services  during  the  War  157 

Americans  and  each  learned  to  know  the  other  better.  That  he 
might  more  successfully  carry  on  this  work,  he  was  granted, 
says  Fay,  as  was;  Thomas  Paine,  a  thousand  dollars  a  year  by 
the  King  of  France.13  For  three  years  he  accepted  this  aid  and 
succeeded  so  well  in  his  design  that  after  his  death  his  work 
survived  him  as  did  the  friendships  he  had  created.14  For 
many  years  this  wise  and  cultured  gentleman  had  been  in- 
terested in  politics  and  government  and  during  the  war  he 
wrote  freely  concerning  such  subjects  to  Adams  and  Franklin. 
He  kept  Franklin  while  in  France  in  touch  with  American 
sentiment,  and  his  letters  and  pamphlets  were  quoted  in  France, 
where,  according  to  Franklin,  his  name  and  character  gave 
weight  to  his  opinions.15 

An  illustration  of  the  most  violent  articles  written  by  the 
clergy  is  one  against  General  Gage,  by  the  fiery-tongued 
old  preacher,  John  Cleaveland,  of  Ipswich.  The  virulence  of  his 
attack  is  almost  incredible.  "Thou  profane,  wicked-monster  of 
falsehood  and  perfidy,"  he  wrote  on  June  17,  1775,  ".  .  .  your 
late  infamous  proclamation  is  as  full  of  notorious  lies,  as  a  toad 
or  rattle-snake  of  deadly  poison — you  are  an  abandoned  wretch. 
.  .  .  Without  speedy  repentance,  you  will  have  an  aggravated 
damnation  in  hell  .  .  .  you  are  not  only  a  robber,  a  murderer, 
and  usurper,  but  a  wicked  Rebel :  A  rebel  against  the  authority 
of  truth,  law,  equity,  the  English  constitution  of  government, 
these  colony  states,  and  humanity  itself."16 

This  same  John  Cleaveland  and  many  of  his  fellow  ministers 
won  the  bitter  enmity  of  the  Loyalists  and  the  English  by  their 
attacks  upon  the  Tories,  and  seem  to  have  been  responsible  for 
a  part  at  least  of  the  harsh  treatment  meted  out  to  them  by 
the  patriots.  Cleaveland  published  articles,  evidently  written  at 
white-heat,  on  the  18th  and  25th  of  April,  1775,  in  which  he 
first  suggested  that  it  might  be  the  "proper  dictate  of  wisdom, 
as  the  way,  and  only  way  left  us  of  our  preservation  and  safety, 

32  Adams,  Writings,  IV.  106.  There  are  many  of  their  letters  in  vols.  Ill  and  IV. 
13  B.   Fay,   L'Esprit  revolutionnaire  en  France  et  aux  Etats-Unis,   pp.   87-88. 
11  Ibid. 

15  Franklin,  Writings,  ed.  Smyth,  VIII.  256-58.  Many  letters  in  vols.  VII,  VIII, 
IX;  also  in  Calendar  of  Franklin  Papers,  I,  II,  III.  See  Bruce,  Benjamin  Franklin, 
1.21,   353. 

16  Essex  Gazette,  July  13,  1775,  but  written  June  17.  An  earlier  "illiberal  letter" 
of  June,  1774  had  been  noticed  in  the  Boston  Post-Boy  of  Aug.  8,  1774.  Another 
letter  of  Sept.  20,  1774  says  that  it  was  unconstitutional  to  obey  Gage  or  to  hold  office 
under  him,  etc.  Other  clergy  had  also  written  articles  and  preached  sermons  against 
Gage.   See  Boston  News-Letter,  Dec.  22,  1774. 


158         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

as  soon  as  we  see  the  sword  of  Great  Britain  drawn  against  us 
to  sacrifice  every  New  England  Tory  among  us"  ;17  and  on  the 
25th  he  cried  out,  ".  .  .  General  Gage,  pluck  up  stakes  and 
begone ;  you  have  drawn  the  sword  .  .  .  the  defensive  sword  of 
New  England  is  now  drawn;  it  now  studies  just  revenge,  and 
it  will  not  be  satisfied  till  your  blood  is  shed,  and  the  blood  of 
every  son  of  violence  under  your  command,  and  the  blood  of 
every  traitorous  Tory  under  your  protection."18  Admirably 
suited  was  this  to  stir  up  the  hot  passions  of  the  crowd.  Even 
in  their  prayers,  the  clergy  consigned  the  Tories  to  strange 
penalties.19 

Colonel  John  Peters,  writing  in  1778  to  the  Rev.  Samuel 
Peters,  the  noted  Tory,  who  was  then  in  London,  accused 
Dr.  Wheelock,  of  Hanover,  New  Hampshire,  with  three  lay- 
men of  having  "put  an  end  to  the  Church  of  England  in  the 
State,  so  early  as  1775,"  of  having  seized  "all  the  Church 
people  for  200  miles  up  the  river  and  confined  us  all  in  close 
gaols,  after  beating  us  and  drawing  us  through  water  and 
mud."20  This  account  Stackpole  considers  somewhat  exagger- 
ated, but  it  shows  that  activity  against  the  Tories  was  attributed 
to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wheelock.  The  Rev.  Samuel  Eaton,  of  Harps- 
well,  had  an  effect  probably  not  intended,  when  he  so  excited 
the  people  of  Harps  well  and  Brunswick  during  an  address  in  the 
meeting  house,  April,  1775,  that  they  seized  one  Vincent  Wood- 
side,  a  Tory  holding  a  commission  from  the  King,  and  pro- 
ceeded to  bury  him  alive,  almost  to  his  destruction ;  then  spoiled 
the  masts  in  the  lumber  yards,  and  finally  went  to  Topsham  and 
seized  another  suspected  Tory,  who  also  fortunately  escaped 
their  anger.21 

It  is  impossible  to  determine  what  proportion  of  the  New 
England  clergy  were  radical  revolutionists  and  what  propor- 

"  Essex  Gazette,  April   18,   1775. 

18  Ibid.,  Apr.  25,  1775.  Also  Sherwood,  Fast  Day  Sermon,  1774,  p.  ix.  Rev. 
Nathaniel  Whitaker  of  Salem  was  violent  in  attacking  Tories,  especially  after 
1776. 

13  Oliver,  The  Origin  and  Progress  of  the  American  Rebellion,  p.  147;  A.  K. 
Teele,  ed.,  History  of  Milton,  pp.  424-25;  Force,  American  Archives,  4th  Ser.  II.  p, 
369;  Essex  Gazette,  Apr.  18  and  25,  1775.  Additional  quotations  in  Appendix.  In  the 
Boston  News-Letter,  Mar.  17,  1775,  a  clergyman  laments  that  some  of  his  brethren 
"strive  to  inflame  the  worst  passion  of  the  human  mind"  and  asks,  "Why  do  patriots 
continually  wish  and  urge  us  to  feed  these  unfriendly  and  malignant  vices?"  He 
would  resign  rather  than  adopt  a  course  "so  odious"  in  a  clergyman.  See  also  Boston 
News-Letter,  Dec.  30,   1774. 

20  Stackpole,  History  of  New  Hampshire,   II.   318. 

21  Wheeler,  History  of  Brunswick,  Topsham  and  Harpwell,  pp.  678-80 ;  Sprague, 
I.  615. 


Varied  Services  during,  the  War  159 

tion  were  conservatives  or  Loyalists..  It  was  difficult  for  the 
Loyalists  among  them  to  get  a  hearing.  Certainly  the  press  and 
publishing  houses,  run  largely  by  radicals,  would  be  slow  to 
accept  their  articles  and  sermons.  In  some  towns,  ministers  who 
were  suspected  of  being  Loyalists  were  called  to  account  by  local 
committees.22  In  some  cases,  as  the  strife  continued,  they  lost 
their  churches  and  suffered  in  other  ways.23  Among  those  refus- 
ing to  bend  to  the  storm  were  not  only  almost  the  entire  body 
of  Anglican  clergy  but  certain  Congregationalists  as  well.  In 
western  Massachusetts  there  was  a  little  band  of  Tory  clergy- 
men who  for  a  time  had  much  influence.  These  were  Daniel 
Collins,  of  Lanesboro,  Abraham  Hill,  of  Shutesbury,  David 
Parsons,  of  Amherst,  Roger  Newton,  of  Greenfield,  and  Jona- 
than Ashley,  of  Deerfield.  In  this  region  there  was  a  strong 
Tory  element  among  the  laymen,  chiefly  among  the  officers  who 
had  served  in  the  French  and  Indian  War  and  those  who  held 
commissions  from  the  king.  The  Williams  family  was  one  of 
the  most  influential  and  had  members  in  several  towns.24 

Into  this  frontier  land  came  two  young  Congregational  min- 
isters, Joseph  Lyman  and  Thomas  Allen.  Joseph  Lyman  was 
from  Lebanon,  Connecticut,  and  arrived  in  Hatfield  in  1772 
He  found  the  Tory  element  in  possession.  In  1768  the  town  hac 
unanimously  voted  to  report  to  Boston  that  they  did  not  approv* 
of  her  measures,  but  considered  them  "unconstitutional,  illegal 
and  wholly  unjustifiable  .  .  .  subversive  of  government  anc 
destructive  of  the  peace  and  good  order  which  is  the  cement  oi 
society."25  Wholeheartedly  the  young  pastor  threw  himself  intc 
the  work  of  changing  their  opinions.  Sunday  after  Sunday,  as 

22  Among  these  were  Asa  Dunbar,  of  Weston,  Samuel  Dana,  of  Groton,  who  in 
Mar.,  1775,  preached  non-resistance,  Timothy  Harrington,  of  Lancaster,  and  Eben- 
ezer  Morse,  of  Shrewsbury.  See  Essex  Gazette,  June  8,  Sept.  21,  1775;  Massachusetts 
Spy,  Nov.  24  and  Dec.  15,  1775;  Butler,  History  of  Groton,  pp.  178-79;  Marvin, 
History  of  Lancaster,  pp.  304-05. 

23  Peter  Whitney,  of  Petersham,  Abraham  Hill,  of  Shutesbury,  David  Parsons, 
of  Amherst,  Benj.  Parker,  of  Haverhill.  See  Crane,  Peter  Whitney  and  his  History 
of  Worcester  Co.,  pp.  9-10;  Judd,  History  of  Hadley,  pp.  410-11;  Chase,  History  of 
Haverhill,  p.  579.  This  study  does  not  consider  the  Anglicans  except  incidently.  In 
the  north  and  middle  colonies  they  were  almost  to  a  man  Loyalists,  but  in  Virginia 
and  the  Carolinas  and  especially  in  Georgia,  more  of  them  were  either  neutral  or 
adhered   openly   to   the   colonial    cause. 

34  C.  J.  Palmer,  History  of  Lanesboro,  pp.  12-13,  82;  Wm.  Bentley,  Diary,  1.92- 
93;  Judd,  History  of  Hadley,  pp.  410-11;  Moore,  Diary  of  the  Revolution,  II.  440;  G. 
Sheldon,  History  of  Deerfield,  II.  677,  693-95,  710-11;  F.  M.  Thompson,  History  of 
Greenfield,  I.  255,  II.  718. 

25  D.  W.  &  R.  F.  Wells,  History  of  Hatfield,  pp.  180-81;  Boston  News-Letter, 
Oct.   6,  1768. 


160         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

well  as  in  town  meeting,  he  preached  the  doctrine  of  liberty  and 
resistance.  He  was  "of  resolute  will  and  indomitable  courage" 
and  he  spoke  "with  burning  words."  In  two  years  the  Whigs 
won  control  of  the  town  meeting  and  in  December,  1774,  they 
ordered  his  Thanksgiving  sermon  published  and  voted  him  the 
thanks  of  the  town.  Colonel  Israel  Williams,  the  head  of  the 
Tory  party,  was  forced  to  sign  the  association  test  and  later 
confined  to  his  home  lot.  Thus  the  zeal  and  energy  of  this  one 
minister  won  a  whole  town  to  the1  American  side  and  doubtless 
his  influence  extended  far  beyond  the  town  limits.26 
J  Thomas  Allen  of  Pittsfield  was  a  man  of  remarkable  power, 
dominating  the  whole  region  round  about.  A  graduate  of  Har- 
vard, in  1762,  he  went  out  in  1765  to  be  pastor  of  the  small 
settlement  on  the  Massachusetts  frontier.  Here  too  there  was  a 
strong  Tory  element,  among  its  leaders  Colonel  William  Wil- 
liams and  Israel  Stoddard.27  There  must  have  been  many  bitter 
struggles  between  the  Tory  and  Whig  factions ;  and  the  part 
played  by  Mr.  Allen  can  be  judged  from  the  accusations  brought 
against  him  and  the  action  of  the  town  thereon.  In  1774  the 
town  "passed  in  full"  the  following  resolutions : 

"  'Whereas  (the  name  of  Colonel  William  Williams  was  here 
inserted  but  erased)  Major  Israel  Stoddard  and  Woodbridge 
Little,  Esquire,  have  exhibited  several  charges  against  the  Rev- 
erend Thomas  Allen,  thereby  endeavoring  to  injure  his  reputa- 
tion, in  respect  to  what  he  said  and  did  in  a  late  town-meeting, 
in  defence  of  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people ;  wherein  they 
charge  the  said  Thomas  with  rebellion,  treason,  and  sedition, 
and  cast  many  other  infamous  aspersions,  tending  to  endanger 
not  only  the  reputation,  but  the  life  of  the  said  Thomas. 

"Voted,  That  all  the  foregoing  charges  are  groundless,  false, 
and  scandalous ;  and  that  the  said  Thomas  is  justifiable  in  all 
things  wherein  he  hath  been  charged  with  the  crimes  afore- 
said ;  and  that  he  hath  merited  the  thanks  of  this  town  in  every- 
thing wherein  he  hath  undertaken  to  defend  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  the  people  in  this  Province,  and  particularly  in 
his  observations  and  animadversions  on  the  Worcester  Cove- 
nant."28 

26  Wells,  pp.  182,  186-88.  He  is  said  to  have  declared  to  his  mother  who  wanted 
him  not  to  antagonize  Col.  Williams,   "There  is  a  man  here  now  he  cannot  rule." 

27  Smith,  History  of  Pittsfield,  pp.   174,   176-77. 

28  Ibid.,  p.  198.  The  Worcester  Covenant  was  an  especially  strict  non-importation 
and  consumption  agreement,  which  seemed  to  some  to  include  even  buying  from  or 
selling  greens  and  potatoes  to  country  people.  See  S.  Adams,  Writings,  III.  pp. 
131-32. 


Varied  Services  during1,  the  War  161 

Somewhat  later  in  1774  the  town  requested  the  Tory  minister 
of  Lanesborough,  Daniel  Collins,  to  cease  censuring-  and  dis- 
approving Allen,  "in  regard  to  his  conduct  in  some  public  affairs 
of  late."  Although  Mr.  Collins  insisted  that  it  would  be  well 
for  "gospel  ministers,  in  their  public  discourses,  to  avoid  enter- 
ing very  far  into  a  consideration  of  state  policy,"29  it  is  clear 
that  the  majority  of  the  town  was  with  their  pastor.  In  1774 
Allen  was  made  chairman  of  the  correspondence  committee  and 
later  was  elected  to  other  committees,  drew  up  town  resolves  and 
instructions,  ruined  the  plots  of  Loyalists,  and  harried  the 
Tories  into  jail  or  with  'hue  and  cry'  drove  them  out  of  the 
country.  He  made  journeys  into  New  York,  and  wherever  he 
went  patriots  sprang  up.  "I  have  exerted  myself,"  he  said,  "to 
disseminate  the  same  spirit  [of  liberty]  in  King's  district,  which 
has  of  late  taken  surprising  effect.  The  poor  tories  at  Kinder- 
hook  are  mortified  and  grieved,  and  are  wheeling  about,  and 
begin  to  take  the  quick  step.  New  York  government  begins  to  be 
alive  in  the  glorious  cause  and  to  act  with  vigor."30  He  was  so 
successful  that  his  name  was  sent  to  General  Gage  as  that  of 
"the  most  dangerous  character  to  the  King's  cause  in  the  west- 
ern part  of  the  colony."31 

i^In  the  Revolution,  as  in  all  wars,  the  clergy  served  as  chap- 
lains in  the  army.  Among  so  many  who  were  enthusiastic  in  the 
cause,  it  is  difficult  to  pick  the  most  influential.  David  Avery,  of 
Gageborough,  Massachusetts,  was  one  who  served  long,  en- 
couraging the  men  with  his  clear,  ringing  voice  through  the 
weary  winter  at  Valley  Forge.32  Abiel  Leonard,  of  Woodstock, 
Connecticut,  was  one  of  the  best  loved  and  most  influential.  In 
March,  1776,  Washington  and  Putnam  wrote  to  his  congrega- 
tion at  Woodstock  asking  them  to  give  him  up  to  the  army, 
because  his  influence  was  so  great  and  so  valuable.33  Among 
those  who  served  for  years  was  the  great  Baptist,  Hezekiah 
Smith,  of  Haverhill,  Massachusetts.  Smith  was  the  friend  of 
Gates,  Washington,  and  many  of  the  New  England  officers, 
and  occasionally  served  as  aide-de-camp.  It  was  he  who  enthusi- 

29  Ibid. 

30  Ibid.,  pp.   209-10;   Headley,  pp.    128-29,    132-34;   Essex   Gazette,   May    18,    1775. 
Letters  by  Allen,  May   1775,   were  published  in  various   papers. 

31  Headley,  p.    132. 

32  Chase,   History   of  Dartmouth   College,   I.    308-09. 

33  Centennial  Papers  General  Conferences  of  Connecticut,  p.  81 ;   Larned,  History 
of  Windham   County,  II.   156-57,   161. 


162         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

astically  called  Saratoga  "the  grandest  conquest  ever  gained 
since  the  creation  of  the  world".34  Many  of  the  men  already 
mentioned  as  radical  preachers  hastened  to  give  their  services  in 
this  way.35  "Mr.  Washington,"  says  Oliver,  speaking  of  the 
winter  1775-1776,  "was  provided  with  a  Chaplain,  who  with  a 
stentorian  Voice  &  an  Enthusiastick  Mania,  could  incite  his 
Army  to  greater  Ardor  than  all  the  Drums  of  his  Regiments. 

"36 

Before  the  actual  hostilities  began,  these  fighting  parsons  had 
their  muskets  ready.  In  September  of  1774  an  alarm  spread 
through  the  country  that  a  clash  had  come  in  Boston  and 
handbills  were  read  in  the  Connecticut  churches  on  the  Sab- 
bath morning.  At  once  the  clergy  responded.  The  Rev.  Jona- 
than Todd,  of  East  Guilford,  marched  with  eighty-three  of 
his  parishioners,  the  Rev.  Mr.  May,  of  Haddam,  and  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Boardman,  of  Chatham,  with  one  hundred  each.37  All  that 
winter  many  were  helping  their  people  to  be  ready  for  any 
emergency.  Some  served  as  clerks  or  officers  of  military  com- 
panies and  alarm  lists,38  some  took  part  in  early  expeditions  to 
secure  powder  and  arms.  The  Rev.  John  Adams,  of  Durham, 
New  Hampshire,  in  December  of  1774  went  with  others  to  take 
supplies  from  the  fort  at  Newcastle  and  is  said  to  have  stored 
the  powder  under  his  pulpit.39  The  Rev.  John  Treadwell  went 
into  his  pulpit  with  musket  loaded,  his  sermon  under  one  arm 
and  his  cartridge  box  under  the  other.40 

When  the  news  of  Lexington  and  Bunker  Hill  arrived,  par- 
son after  parson  left  his  parish  and  marched  hastily  toward 
Boston.   Before  daylight  on  the  morning  of  April  30,   1775, 

84  Guild,  Chaplain  Smith,  p.  227;  see  also  pp.  20,  SI,  162,  165,  198;  Diary  of 
Smith,  pp.  35  ff. 

85  Stephen  Johnson,  of  Lyme,  present  at  Bunker  Hill;  Ebenezer  Baldwin,  of 
Danbury;  Benjamin  Trumbull,  of  North  Haven;  the  aged  Benjamin  Pomeroy,  of 
Hebron,  some  of  whose  people  thought  him  altogether  too  deeply  concerned  with  poli- 
tics; Cotton  Mather  Smith,  of  Sharon,  who  is  said  to  have  written  the  patriotic 
hymns  sung  by  his  congregation;  Judah  Champion,  of  Litchfield;  and  others  of 
Conn.  Of  Mass.,  John  Cleaveland  of  Ipswich;  Thomas  Allen,  of  Pittsfield;  also 
Peter  Powers,  of  Haverhill,  N.  H.;  and  many  others  both  better  and  less  well- 
known. 

86  Oliver,  The  Origin  and  Progress  of  the  American  Rebellion,  p.    192. 

3T  Chase,  Beginnings  of  the  American  Revolution,  II.  38-39,  quoted  from  Stiles, 
Diary,  I.  484-85. 

38  Crowell,  History  of  Town  of  Essex,  pp.  203-04;  Essex  Gazette,  Mar.  14,  1775; 
Provincial  Papers,  N.  H.  VII.  601;  Tapley,  Chronicles  of  Danvers,  p.  69. 

39  Stackpole,  History  of  New  Hampshire,  II.   72. 

40  Lewis   and  Newhall,   History   of  Lynn,   I.  340,346. 


Varied  Services  during  the  War  163 

Stephen  Farrar,  of  New  Ipswich,  New  Hampshire,  left  with 
ninety-seven  of  his  parishioners.41  Joseph  Willard,  of  Beverly, 
marched  with  two  companies  from  his  town,  raised  in  no  small 
part  through  his  exertion.42  David  Avery,  of  Windsor,  Ver- 
mont, after  hearing  the  news  of  Lexington,  preached  a  fare- 
well sermon,  then,  outside  the  meeting-house  door,  called  his 
people  to  arms  and  marched  with  twenty  men.  On  the  way 
he  served  as  captain,  preached,  and  collected  more  troops.43 
David  Grosvenor,  of  Grafton,  left  his  pulpit  and,  musket  in  hand, 
joined  the  minute  men  who  marched  to  Cambridge.44  Phillips 
Payson,  of  Chelsea,  is  given  credit  for  leading  a  group  of  his 
parishioners  to  attack  a  band  of  English  soldiery  that  nineteenth 
day  of  April.45  Benjamin  Balch,  of  Danvers,  Lieutenant  of  the 
third  alarm-list  in  his  town,  was  present  at  Lexington  and 
later,  as  chaplain  in  army  and  navy,  won  the  title  of  "the 
fighting  parson."46  Jonathan  French,  of  Andover,  Massachu- 
setts, left  his  pulpit  on  the  Sabbath  morning,  when  the  news  of 
Bunker  Hill  arrived,  and  with  surgical  case  in  one  hand  and 
musket  in  the  other  started  for  Boston.47 

A  surprising  number  of  preachers  served  as  privates  or  as 
officers  during  the  war.48  Throughout  the  war,  as  earlier,  they 
encouraged  enlisting  and  often  succeeded  when  the  recruiting 
officers  failed.  The  Provincial  Congress  of  Massachusetts  order- 
ed that  Phillips  Payson,  of  Chelsea,  and  the  eager  young  pastor 
of  Maiden,  Peter  Thacher,  be  furnished  with  "beating  orders" 

41  Chandler,  History  of  New  Ipswich,  pp.   74-76. 

43  Thayer,  Address  delivered  in   First   Parish,    Beverly,    p.    54. 

*-  Headley,  p.  291;  Chase,  History  of  Dartmouth  College,  I.  308  and  note. 

44  Pierce,  History  of   Grafton,  p.    188;    Parkman,  Diary,  p.   93. 

45  Chamberlain,    Documentary    History    of    Chelsea,    II.  312,    425-27. 

46  Balch,  "Some  Account  of  the  Rev.  Benjamin  Balch",  Danvers  Hist.  Coll.,  VII. 
86-93.  They  hastened  to  Boston,  even  from  distant  towns.  Nathaniel  Eells,  of  Stoning- 
ton,  Connecticut,  for  instance,  and  men  from  New  Hampshire  hurried  to  help.  Cf. 
Wheeler,  History  of  Stonington,  p.  363.  There  seem  to  have  been  many  neighboring 
ministers  at  Concord,  some  animating  their  men,  some  distributing  ammunition,  and 
some  fighting.  See  Chase,  Beginnings  of  American  Revolution,  III.   31,  61-62,   107. 

47  Bailey,  Historical  Sketches  of  Andover,  p.   454. 

48  Details  may  be  learned  from  Breed,  Headley,  Centennial  Papers,  General  Con- 
ferences of  Connecticut,  etc.  They  served  as  privates,  lieutenants,  captains,  and  now 
and  then  as  officers  of  higher  rank.  The  Rev.  John  Martin  fought  at  Bunker  Hill, 
and  Thos.  Allen  at  Bennington.  See  Frothingham,  History  of  Charlestown,  p.  366; 
Sprague,  I.  608-09.  Quotations  from  Upcott,  IV.  419  are  to  be  found  in  Moore, 
Diary  of  the  Revolution,  I.  358:  "So  great  is  the  rage  of  fighting  among  the 
Presbyterian  preachers,  that  one  of  them  has  taken  no  less  than  seven  different 
commissions,  in  order  to  excite  the  poor  deluded  men  who  have  taken  up  arms,  they 
know  not  why,  to  stand  forth  with  an  enthusiastic  ardor,  against  their  King  and  the 
constitution"  (Dec.  1776).  This  refers  to  ministers  of  other  colonies  as  well  as  to 
New   England. 


164         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

for  the  purpose  of  raising  two  companies  for  defence  of  the 
sea-coast.49  William  Emerson,  who  had  so  aroused  the  men  of 
Concord  that  many  enlisted  among  the  minute  men  in  January, 
1775,  often  used  his  power  in  like  fashion  in  later  years.50  The 
story  told  of  the  Rev.  Samuel  Eells,  of  Bradford,  Connecticut, 
is  typical.  When  news  arrived  in  1777  that  Washington  needed 
help,  he  read  the  notice  from  the  pulpit,  stopped  the  service,  ad- 
journed to  the  green  in  front  of  the  meeting-house,  where  a 
company  was  at  once  formed  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Eells  made 
its  captain.51  The  sharp-tongued  John  Cleaveland  is  said  to 
have  preached  his  whole  parish  into  the  army  and  then  to  have 
gone  himself,52  while  the  Rev.  Thomas  Allen,  of  Pittsfield, 
persuaded  a  whole  discontented  brigade  in  General  Lincoln's 
army  to  remain  in  service.53  There  was  many  another  pastor 
who  encouraged  recruiting  and  kept  up  the  spirits  of  his  people 
during  days  of  suffering  and  discouragement.  They  pled  for 
union  and  sacrifice  and  persistent  effort  until  the  war  was  won. 
"It  is  better  to  be  free  among  the  dead,  than  slaves  among  the 
living,"  said  Zabdiel  Adams  in  1782.54 

Besides  serving  as  recruiting  agents,  chaplains,  and  fighters, 
the  ministers  helped  in  many  other  ways.  John  Murray,  of 
Boothbay,  Maine,  who  was  peculiarly  successful  in  preaching 
men  into  service,  also  carried  messages  for  the  armies  while 
serving  as  chaplain,  and  a  reward  of  five  hundred  pounds  was 
offered  by  the  British  for  his  arrest.55  Samuel  Haven,  of  Ports- 
mouth, the  loved  friend  of  the  poor,  on  hearing  of  Lexington, 
sat  up  much  of  the  night  making  bullets  and  soon  started  a 
manufactory  of  saltpeter  so  successful  that  it  was  noticed  by 
"Junius"  in  the  New  Hampshire  Gazette  of  January  9,  1776, 
who  was  opposing  independence  on  the  grounds  that  it  couldn't 
be  won  and,  if  won,  couldn't  be  maintained.  In  speaking  of  the 
lack  of  ammunition,  he  wrote,  "I  said  without  ammunition ;  but 
the  making  of  Salt  Petre  has  made  such  rapid  progress,  especi- 

49  Chamberlain,   Documentary   History    of    Chelsea,    II.  427. 

50  Shattuck,   History    of   Concord,   p.    93. 

51  Baldwin,  "Branford  Annals,"  in  New  Haven  Colony  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  IV 
328-29 

62  A.   F.   Stickney,  Mag.   of  Amer.   Hist.,   XXVIII.  392. 

63  Wm.  Allen,  An  Account  of  the  Separation,  .  .  .  ,  p.  68. 

64  Swift,  "Massachusetts  Election  Sermons,"  in  Mass.  Col.  Soc.  Pub.,  I.  428. 
Among  the  most  noted  chaplains  were  Cotton  Mather  Smith,  of  Sharon,  Conn., 
Nathaniel  Robbins,  of  Milton,  Mass.,  Peter  Powers,  of  Haverhill,  N.  H.,  Moses 
Mather,  of   Stamford,     and  David  Ely,  of  Huntingdon,   Conn. 

55  Greene,  Boothbay,  Southport  and  Boothbay  Harber,  p.  233. 


Varied  Services  during  the  War  165 

ally  at  Portsmouth,  where  both  clergy  and  laity  are  employed 
six  days  in  the  week  and  the  Seventh  is  seasoned  with  it,  that  I 
beg  leave  to  subtract  that."56  The  learned  Samuel  West,  of 
Dartmouth,  raised  the  ire  of  the  British  by  deciphering  an  im- 
portant letter  which  had  been  written  in  a  secret  code.57  In 
Connecticut,  when  the  people,  tired  of  Continental  money,  start- 
ed a  secret  trade  with  the  British  on  Long  Island,  the  ministers 
determined  to  stop  the  trade  and,  in  general,  succeeded.  One 
man  is  said  to  have  been  excommunicated  from  the  church  for 
thus  selling  oxen.58 

These  ministers  also  gave  of  their  small  salaries  to  help  the 
cause  of  independence  and  union.  Man  after  man  sacrificed  a 
part  or,  in  some  instances,  all  of  his  salary.  It  would  perhaps 
have  been  difficult  in  some  cases  to  collect  the  rates  from  a 
people  heavily  burdened,  but  ministers  also  felt  the  pinch  of 
war  and  to  remit  a  whole  year's  salary  was  genuine  devotion. 
And  in  some  cases  they  gave  more  than  this.  Such  men  were 
Nathaniel  Taylor,  of  New  Milford,  Connecticut,  Josiah 
Stearnes,  of  Epping,  and  James  Pike,  of  Somersworth,  New 
Hampshire,  and  the  zealous  David  Sanford,  of  Medway,  Massa- 
chusetts.59 Another  man  of  small  means  was  the  Rev.  Thomas 
Allen,  of  the  little  frontier  village  of  Pittsfield,  yet  he  made 
large  loans  to  the  government,  even  selling  his  watch  for  the 
cause.60 

Among  those  who  wrote  narratives  of  the  war  were  David 
Avery,  David  Rowland,  William  Emerson,  Peter  Thacher,  of 
Maiden,  Ezra  Stiles,  and  Thomas  Allen.61  One  of  Allen's  letters 
to  the  Hartford  Courant  of  September  1,  1777,  described  the 

66  State  Papers,  N.  H.,  VIII.   26.   See  also   Moore,   Collections,   Topog re- 

lating   to  N.    H.,   II.  367-68. 

67  Old  Dartmouth  Historical  Sketches,   1903-1907,  No.   7,   Sept.   1904,  p.   13. 

08  Centennial  Papers  General  Conferences  of  Connecticut,  pp.  25-26.  Authority  for 
these  statements  is  not -given. 

69  Sprague,  I.  467-68;  Farmer  and  Moore,  Hist.  Coll.,  I.  259-60;  Scales,  History 
of  Strafford  Co.,  p.  220;  Jameson,  History  of  Medway,  pp.  426-27;  Headley,  p. 
361.  I  have  other  like  illustrations. 

80  Wm.  Allen,  An  Account  of  the  Separation,  .   .   .   ,  p.  68. 

01  Allen  wrote  an  account  of  Bennington  in  Connecticut  Courant,  of  Ticonderoga 
in  Hartford  Courant.  Other  letters  of  his  were  published  and  copied.  See  also  Wm. 
Allen,  An  Account  of  the  Separation,  p.  68;  Avery,  Thanksgiving  Sermon,  Dec.  18, 
1777,  gives  a  glowing  account  of  the  war;  Rowland,  Historical  Remarks,  Provi- 
dence, June  6,  1774;  Swayne,  The  Story  of  Concord.  Emerson  wrote  an  account  of 
the  battle;  Thacher  wrote  at  request  an  account  of  Bunker  Hill.  Stiles  helped  to 
prepare  an  account  of  hostilities  by  ministry,  army,  navy,  etc.  See  Letters  and 
Papers,   1761-1776,  no.   151   (M.  H.  S.). 


166         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

Ticonderoga  campaign,  which  he  heartily  condemned  as  reflect- 
ing "eternal  shame  and  infamy  upon  the  American  Army." 

An  amusing  bit  of  assistance  to  the  patriot  cause  was  given 
by  the  Rev.  Wheeler  Case,  who  described  in  rhyme  Saint  Clair's 
flight,  Burgoyne's  defeat,  and  other  incidents  of  the  war.  His 
purpose  in  printing,  so  he  said,  was  to  help,  if  he  might,  "the 
glorious  cause  of  Liberty".  Like  many  another  preacher  he 
foresaw  a  great  and  teeming  land. 

"Our  borders  shall  extend  both  far  and  wide, 
Our  cords  shall  lengthen  out  on  ev'ry  side, 
State  after  State,  the  growing  numbers  rise, 
The  greatest  Empire  this  below  the  skies, 
In  gloomy  desert,  e'en  in  distant  land, 
Large  cities  shall  be  built,  and  churches  stand. 
******* 

Where  wolves  now  range  and  other  beasts  of  prey, 
Where  Indian  tribe  more  savage  far  than  they ;  .  .  . 

Trade  unconfin'd  extensively  shall  grow 

And  riches  here  from  ev'ry  nation  flow. 

Our  naval  force,  how  great !  our  fleets  abound, 

Our  flocks  and  herds  spread  o'er  the  land  around, 

Here  ev'ry  sort  of  fruit  springs  up  and  grows, 

And  all  the  Land  with  milk  and  honey  flows."62 

Occasionally  a  minister  was  able  to  render  an  unusual  ser- 
vice by  giving  important  information  to  those  in  power.  In  his 
own  estimation  and  in  that  of  his  biographer  President  Eleazar 
Wheelock  of  Dartmouth  College  was  of  signal  service  in  send- 
ing frequent  embassies  to  the  Canadian  Indians,  in  keeping  up 
friendly  relations  with  them,  and  in  receiving  and  transmitting 
news  from  the  northern  frontier.  He  served  as  Justice  of  the 
Peace,  organized  the  militia  in  Hanover,  and  kept  in  constant 
touch  with  influential  friends,  such  as  Governor  Trumbull  of 
Connecticut.  His  work  was  considered  of  such  importance  that 
he  was  given  in  1776  a  grant  of  five  hundred  dollars  by  the  Con- 
tinental Congress.63 

62  Wheeler  Case,  Poems,  Occasioned  By  Several  Circumstances  and  Oc currencies, 
In  the  Present  grand  Contest  of  America  For  Liberty  (C.  H.  S.,  no.  297). 

83  Chase,  History  of  Dartmouth  College,  I.  87-88,  317ff,  365;  Provincial  Papers, 
N.  H.,  VII.  17,  547-48,  680;  MS  Letters,  nos.  775378.1,  775378.3,  775478,  775408, 
775578.1,  775216.2,  775217,  775220.1,  775222,  775306,  775352,  776116.1  (D.  C.  L.). 
Other  clergymen  gave  information  of  importance.  For  examples  of  such  service,  see 
MS  Letter  of  Rev.  Richard  Salter  to  William  Williams  (C.  H.  S.)  and  the  Wheelock 
Papers. 


Varied  Services  during  the  War  167 

These  are  but  a  few  of  the  more  striking  instances  of  the 
activity  of  the  New  England  ministers.  There  were  many  other 
men  whose  work  was  of  equal  importance,  both  those  whose 
names  are  well-known  and  those  of  little  fame.  It  is  not  possible 
to  enumerate  all  their  many  services.  Perhaps  the  most  impor- 
tant from  the  point  of  view  of  a  country  at  war  was  their  un- 
flagging interest,  their  support  of  the  Union,  and  their  confi- 
dence of  success.  Both  in  the  army  and  in  the  home  village 
they  strengthened  the  hearts  of  their  people  and  kept  them  often 
from  yielding  to  the  natural  discouragement  of  a  long  war 
gladdened  with  few  victories  and  darkened  by  military  defeat 
and  economic  depression. 


Chapter  XII 
CONCLUSION 

In  the  preceding  chapters  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  show 
one  phase  of  the  American  Revolution  about  which  little  has 
been  written.  Such  a  study  proves  beyond  question  that  the  argu- 
ments used  against  England  were  no  new  ones ;  on  the  contrary 
they  had  a  continuous  history  running  far  back  into  the  past. 
They  were  the  result  of  long  discussions,  of  traditional  belief, 
of  continual  re-interpretation  of  the  Bible  in  the  light  of  new 
philosophy;  they  grew  out  of  theology  and  church  polity,  out  of 
sharp  ecclesiastical  controversy  as  well  as  of  more  purely  polit- 
ical theory. 

For  generations  the  ministers  had  kept  alive  the  doctrines  of 
the  seventeenth  century  and  had  presented  them  to  their  people, 
now  in  one  guise,  now  in  another.  Their  devotion  to  the 
traditions  of  their  ancestors,  their  need  to  defend  the  Han- 
overian succession,  their  interest  in  keeping  out  the  Anglican 
church,  the  custom  of  the  election  sermons,  their  interest  in 
the  political  affairs  of  the  colonies,  all  led  them  to  study  con- 
stitutional government  and  to  relate  it  to  the  teachings  of 
the  Bible. 

Out  of  reading  and  discussion,  preaching  and  practice  there 
had  grown  up  a  body  of  constitutional  doctrine,  very  closely 
associated  with  theology  and  church  polity,  and  commonly 
accepted  by  New  Englanders.  Most  significant  was  the  convic- 
tion that  fundamental  law  was  the  basis  of  all  rights.  God  ruled 
over  men  by  a  divine  constitution.  Natural  and  Christian  rights 
were  legal  rights  because  a  part  of  the  law  of  God.  The  peculiar 
privileges  of  Englishmen  were  guaranteed  by  the  constitution. 
Every  part  of  the  government  was  limited  in  power  by  the  con- 
stitution. Any  act  contrary  to  the  constitution  was  illegal  and 
therefore  null  and  void. 

Probably  the  most  fundamental  principle  of  the  American 
constitutional  system  is  the  principle  that  no  one  is  bound  to 
obey  an  unconstitutional  act.  The  present  study  reveals  that  this 
doctrine  was  taught  in  fullness  and  taught  repeatedly  before 
1763.  The  enquiry  is  sometimes  made  why  the  courts  in  America 

[  168  ] 


Conclusion  169 


have  the  power  of  declaring  laws  void,  why,  in  other  words, 
the  courts  have  accepted  the  principle  that  no  one  is  bound  by 
an  unconstitutional  act.  No  single  idea  was  more  fully  stressed, 
no  principle  more  often  repeated,  through  the  first  sixty  years 
of  the  eighteenth  century,  than  that  governments  must  obey  law 
and  that  he  who  resisted  one  in  authority  who  was  violating 
that  law  was  not  himself  a  rebel  but  a  protector  of  law. 

The  similarity  between  the  political  philosophy  of  the  seven- 
teenth century  and  that  of  the  American  Revolution  has  often 
been  pointed  out,  but  the  lines  of  transmission  have  never  been 
clearly  traced.  The  teachings  of  the  New  England  ministers 
provide  one  unbroken  line  of  descent.  For  two  generations  and 
more  New  Englanders  had  heard  their  rights  and  the  political 
philosophy  underlying  them  carefully  analyzed ;  they  had  been 
taught  that  these  rights  were  sacred  and  came  from  God  and 
that  to  preserve  them  they  had  a  legal  right  of  resistance  and, 
if  necessary,  a  right  to  resume  the  powers  they  had  delegated 
and  alter  and  abolish  governments  and  by  common  consent 
establish  new  ones.  Such  principles  had  been  used  to  define  the 
relative  power  of  rulers  and  people.  They  had  been  called  upon 
to  strengthen  the  hands  of  the  colonists  against  over-bearing 
governors  and  councils,  of  church  members  against  the  tyranny 
of  pastors,  and  of.  governing  bodies,  both  civil  and  religious, 
against  an  unruly  people.  In  such  struggles,  in  defense  of 
Hanoverian  against  Stuart,  in  the  French  and  Indian  war, 
these  theories  had  been  taken  out  of  the  field  of  abstraction 
and  had  become  associated  with  cherished  personal  liberties 
and  with  the  protection  of  home,  church,  and  country.  Thus 
they  had  been  woven  into  the  warp  and  woof  of  New  England 
thought. 

Perhaps  the  class  most  concerned  with  these  theories  before 
1763  was  the  clergy.  But  the  clergy  were  not  a  class  apart.  They 
were  the  fellow-students,  the  teachers  and  friends  of  profes- 
sional and  business  men  and  the  pastors  and  guides  of  less 
learned  farmers.  If  Mayhew  and  Eliot  read  Locke  and  Sydney 
and  found  their  teachings  deepened  and  strengthened  by  the 
Bible,  it  is  probable  that  they  talked  over  their  convictions  with 
Otis  and  Thacher  and  other  friends.  If  Jonas  Clarke  preached 
frequently  on  government  he  surely  discussed  it  with  Hancock 
and  Adams  and  others  who  met  in  his  hospitable  home.  All 


170         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

through  the  New  England  colonies  the  ministers  were  helping 
to  spread  the  theories  of  the  philosophers  and  to  give  them  reli- 
gious sanction.  Thus  when  the  trouble  with  England  came  to 
a  head,  New  Englanders  were  accustomed  to  thinking  and  to 
arguing  for  their  rights  in  terms  of  natural  law,  the  constitu- 
tion, government  by  consent,  and  the  right  of  resistance,  and 
believed  that  by  so  doing  they  were  following  the  injunctions 
of  God. 

The  significance  of  this  background  of  Revolutionary  thought 
has  never  been  adequately  appreciated.  Historians  have  some- 
times believed  that  these  theories  were  exotic  and  were  foisted 
upon  the  people  by  a  few  book-learned  political  leaders  when 
the  Revolutionary  ferment  began.  A  study  such  as  this  of  the 
teachings  of  the  ministers  proves  rather  that  a  New  Englander 
could  not  have  helped  thinking  in  terms  of  natural  and  funda- 
mental law  and  constitutional  right.  Government  by  consent 
and  the  illegality  of  an  unconstitutional  act  were  to  him  as 
unquestioned  as  the  divine  law  which  gave  them  sanction.  There 
is  not  a  right  asserted  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  which 
had  not  been  discussed  by  the  New  England  clergy  before  1763. 

The  motives  which  led  so  many  of  the  New  England  ministers 
to  support  the  American  cause  when  the  break  with  England 
came  would  be  impossible  to  determine.  The  younger  ones,  grad- 
uated from  college  after  1763,  had  been  educated  in  an  atmos- 
phere of  opposition  to  Great  Britain.  They  were  likely  to  sym- 
pathize with  movements  of  revolt  and  to  fall  in  with  popular 
tendencies.  Most  of  the  non-conformist  clergymen  who  were 
Tories  were  old  men,  and  yet  there  were  young  college  graduates 
among  the  revolutionists.  The  country  clergy  were  likely,  then 
as  now,  to  follow  the  example  of  the  leading  city  ministers,  to 
accept  their  decisions  and  to  echo  their  words,  and  the  Boston 
clergy  of  greatest  influence  were  friends  of  the  "Faction".  The 
ministers  were,  as  they  themselves  said,  men  and  citizens,  and 
felt  the  common  impulses.  The  hard  times  and  scarce  money 
affected  them  as  it  did  their  parishioners.  One  very  strong 
motive  was  the  fear,  acute  after  the  Quebec  Act  of  1774,  of 
an  Episcopate  and  the  possible  loss  of  their  own  independence 
and  prestige.  They  were  firmly  convinced  that  civil  liberty  and 
religious  liberty  were  inextricably  tied  together.  All  their  tradi- 
tions were  opposed  to  appointed  clergy,  clerical  courts,  etc.  All 


Conclusion  171 


their  history  taught  them  resistance  to  the  domination  of  gov- 
ernment over  church.  Doubtless  also  there  were  ministers  whose 
chief  desire  was  not  to  alienate  their  people  and  lose  their 
church  and  income.  Such  waited  to  see  which  way  the  tide  was 
running  and  were  mere  reflections  of  the  word  and  will  of  their 
people. 

Yet  with  all  that  can  be  said  of  this  or  that  motive,  there  seems 
no  doubt  that  one  at  least,  and  a  very  strong  one,  indeed  the 
controlling  one  in  many  cases,  was  a  sincere  conviction  of  the 
validity  of  the  old  theories  of  government  in  which  they  had 
been  brought  up  and  in  their  special  duty,  as  ministers  of  God, 
to  support  them  against  all  unconstitutional  attack.1 

The  alliance  of  the  ministers  with  the  leaders  of  the  agita- 
tion against  England  was  one  reason  for  its  success.  They  were 
organized  and  could  easily  communicate  with  each  other.  They 
were  able  and  zealous  propagandists  with  a  remarkable  oppor- 
tunity for  reaching  the  people.  All  through  the  struggle  they 
used  every  means  at  their  disposal  to  present  the  old  arguments 
with  new  force.  No  clever  lawyer,  no  radical  mechanic  gave 
more  warmth  and  color  to  the  cause  than  did  some  of  these 
reverend  divines.  With  a  vocabulary  enriched  by  the  Bible  they 
made  resistance  and  at  last  independence  and  war  a  holy- cause. 
To  have  won  their  support  was,  so  said  their  enemies,  the 
"master-stroke"  of  the  politicians.2 

Resistance  thus  become  a  sacred  duty  to  a  people  who  still 
were,  on  the  whole,  a  religious  people.  The  urge  of  restless  dis- 
content with  conditions,  with  high  taxes  and  hard  times,  the 
impatience  of  control  and  the  independent  spirit  of  the  frontier, 
the  travail  of  a  nation  in  birth,  were  given  legal  and  religious 
sanction.  "What  effect  must  it  have  had  upon  the  audience," 
exclaimed  Daniel  Leonard,  "to  hear  the  same  sentiments  and 
principles,  which  they  had  before  read  in  a  newspaper,  delivered 
on  Sundays  from  the  sacred  desk,  with  a  religious  awe,  and  the 

1  Samuel  West's  request  to  the  clergy  in  his  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon, 
1776,  to  study  civil  government  and  to  teach  its  principles  to  the  people  is  typical. 
The  article  by  Chauncey  A.  Goodrich  in  1856  (Sprague,  I.  509-10)  on  Rev.  Eli- 
zur  Goodrich,  of  Durham,  Connecticut,  says  that  the  zeal  of  the  clergy  was  not 
merely  a  feeling  caught  from  their  people  or  received  from  politicians,  but  was 
the  result  of  long  discussions  of  some  years  by  leading  ministers  in  social  and 
ecclesiastical  meetings.  Elizur  Goodrich,  for  example,  had  studied  the  right  of  re- 
sistance with  President  Clap,  had  later  studied  Cumberland's  Law  of  Nature, 
Grotius,  Puffendorf,  etc.,  and  grew  passionate,  in  the  pulpit  only,  on  the  religious 
duty  of  resistance  to  Great  Britain.  See  also  Barry,  History  of  Massachusetts,  II. 
275;   III.   12-13. 

2  Boston  News-Letter,   December  22,    1774. 


172         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

most  solemn  appeals  to  heaven  from  lips,  which  they  had  been 
taught  from  their  cradle  to  believe  could  utter  nothing  but 
eternal  truths  !"3 

It  would  be  hard  to  measure  the  value  of  their  service  in  the 
war.  But  of  equal  value  was  their  help  in  constitution  making. 
These  ministers  believed  in  the  theories  they  preached  and  in- 
tended to  see  that  the  unique  opportunity  before  them  was  not 
lost.  That  the  new  governments  should  be  formed  according  to 
right  principles  they  were  determined.  The  only  way  in  which 
they  could  conceive  of  government  set  up  by  compact  was 
through  the  calling  of  the  constitutional  convention.  To  define 
the  natural  rights  retained  by  the  people  meant  a  bill  of  rights. 
To  separate  and  limit  the  powers  of  each  part  of  the  govern- 
ment so  that  the  rights  of  each  should  be  exactly  determined 
and  carefully  preserved  meant  the  drawing  up  of  a  written  con- 
stitution which  could  be  changed  only  by  the  people  themselves. 
The  insistence  of  the  ministers  on  these  and  other  points  seems 
to  have  had  a  decided  influence  on  the  course  of  events.  A  few 
years  later,  when  Massachusetts  was  in  the  throes  of  adopting 
the  Federal  Constitution,  General  Lincoln  wrote  to  Washing- 
ton, "It  is  very  fortunate  for  us,  that  the  clergy  are  pretty  gen- 
erally with  us.  They  have  in  this  State  a  very  great  influence 
over  the  people."4  So  might  the  leaders  of  the  Revolution  have 
said  not  only  in  Massachusetts  but  in  all  the  New  England 
Colonies. 

The  right  to  life,  liberty,  and  property  has  been  written 
into  our  constitutions.  Their  meaning  has  changed  with  the 
years  and  sometimes  in  ways  far  from  the  thought  of  the  men 
of  1776,  but  we  can  think  of  no  government  without  them. 
The  right  of  religious  freedom  is  another  dearly  cherished  right, 
though  at  times  endangered.  Americans  reverence  the  written 
constitution,  drawn  up  in  a  convention  called  for  this  purpose 
only,  and  carefully  separate  the  powers  of  government.  As  we 
search  for  the  origin  of  these  and  other  fundamental  constitu- 
tional doctrines  and  the  reasons  for  America's  devotion  to 
them,  one  line  of  search  runs  back  to  the  New  England  min- 
isters who  for  a  hundred  years  and  more  accepted  and  taught 
them  with  unquestioning  faith  and,  to  a  religious  people,  gave 
them  the  sanction  of  divine  law. 

3  J.   Adams,   Life   and    Works,    IV.  SS,    note.    For   comments   by   Adams,    see    pp. 
55-56;  for  other  comments,  Boston  News-Letter,  March   17,   1775. 
*  Writings  of  Washington,  ed.  Sparks,  IX.  330,  note. 


APPENDIX  A 

Examples  of  Covenants 

Church  Covenant 

Examples  of  the  church  covenant  are  given  in  many  published  church 
and  town  records.  Walker,  Creeds  and  Platforms,  also  gives  examples 
of  simple  and  more  elaborate  covenants. 

The  Charlestown-Boston  Covenant  (Walker,  p.  131)  is  as  follows: 

"In  the  Name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  &  in  Obedience  to  His  holy 
will  &  Divine  Ordinaunce. 

"Wee  whose  names  are  herevnder  written,  being  by  His  most  wise, 
&  good  Providence  brought  together  into  this  part  of  America  in  the 
Bay  of  Masachusetts,  &  desirous  to  vnite  our  selves  into  one  Congrega- 
tion, or  Church,  vnder  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  our  Head,  in  such  sort  as 
becometh  all  those  whom  He  hath  Redeemed,  &  Sanctifyed  to  Himselfe, 
do  hereby  solemnly,  and  religiously  (as  in  His  most  holy  Proesence) 
Promisse,  &  bind  orselves,  to  walke  in  all  our  wayes  according  to  the 
Rule  of  the  Gospell,  &  in  all  sincere  Conformity  to  His  holy  Ordi- 
naunces,  &  in  mutuall  love,  &  respect  each  to  other,  so  neere  as  God 
shall  give  vs  grace." 

Covenant  zvith  Minister. 

For  discussion  and  examples  of  this  type  of  covenant  as  a  binding 
contract,  see  Plymouth  Church  Records,  2  vols.,  published  by  New  Eng- 
land Society,  N.  Y.,  1920-1923,  especially  vol.  I,  pp.  xxvi-xxvii;  also 
Records  of  the  Town  of  Plymouth,  vol.  I,  Plymouth,  1889 ;  Connecticut 
Historical  Society  Collections,  II,  51-125.  An  example  of  a  binding  letter 
of  acceptance  is  that  written  by  the  Rev.  Avery  Hall  to  the  church  at 
Rochester,  New  Hampshire,  after  they  had  agreed  to  pay  him  a  salary  of 
£  80  (Franklin  McDuffee,  History  of  the  Town  of  Rochester,  New 
Hampshire,  2  vols.,  ed.  and  revised  by  Silvanus  Hayward,  Manchester, 
1892;  I.  89-90). 

"To  the  Church  of  Christ  in  Rochester  &  to  the  Congregation  in  sd 
Town  Avery  Hall  sendeth  Greeting. 
Dearly  beloved  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Where  as  in  your  destitute  State,  being  deprived  of  a  settled  Gospel 
Minister,  God  in  his  Providence  hath  pointed  out  me,  to  preach  ye 
Gospel  to  you,  &  you  have  made  choice  of  me  (1.  as  ye  least  of  all 
Saints)  to  be  your  gospel  Minister;  to  take  the  charge  of  your  Souls; 
Seeing  your  Unanimity,  &  having  implored  ye  divine  Guidance  in  this 
important  affair  &  being  moved  as  I  humbly  trust  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
I  think  it  my  Duty  to  accept  the  call ;  &  I  do  freely  accept  ye  Call  to 
ye  Work  of  the  gospel  ministry  among  you  &  stand  ready  to  be  intro- 
duced into  ye  Sacred  Office  according  to  gospel  Order  in  a  convenient 
time,  confiding  in  your  Goodness  that  you  will  be  ready  to  afford  me  all 
needful  helps  &  Assistances,  for  my  comfortable  Support  among  you ; 
expecting  also  that  you  allow  me  a  suitable  time  for  Journeying  once  a 
year  to  visit  my  Friends  abroad — &  now  I  beseech  ye  God  of  all  Grace 
to  bless  us  with  all  spiritual  Blessings  in  heavenly  things  in  Christ 
Jesus ;  and  that  ye  Word  of  the  Lord  may  have  free  Course  &  be 
glorified  among  us." 


[173] 


174         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

Town  Covenant  of  Exeter,  N.  H. 

(New  Hampshire  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.  1st.  ser.,  I.  p.  321.) 

"Whereas  it  hath  pleased  the  Lord  to  move  the  heart  of  our  dread 
sovereign  Charles,  by  the  grace  of  God,  king,  &c.  to  grant  license  and 
libertye  to  sundry  of  his  subjects  to  plant  themselves  in  the  western 
parts  of  America.  We  his  loyal  subjects  brethren  of  the  church  in  Exeter, 
situate  and  lying  upon  the  River  Pascataqua,  with  other  inhabitants 
there,  considering  with  ourselves  the  holy  will  of  God  and  our  own 
necessity  that  we  should  not  live  without  wholsom  lawes  and  civil  govern- 
ment among  us,  of  which  we  are  altogether  destitute;  do  in  the  name 
of  Christ  and  in  the  sight  of  God,  combine  ourselves  together  to  erect 
and  set  up  among  us  such  government  as  shall  be  to  our  best  discerning 
agreeable  to  the  will  of  God,  professing  ourselves  subjects  to  our 
sovereign  lord  king  Charles  according  to  the  libertys  of  our  English 
colony  of  Massachusetts,  and  binding  of  ourselves  solemnly  by  the 
grace  and  help  of  Christ,  and  in  his  name  and  fear  to  submit  ourselves 
to  such  godly  and  christian  lawes  as  are  established  in  the  realm  of 
England  to  our  best  knowledge,  and  to  all  other  such  lawes  which 
shall  upon  good  grounds  be  made  and  enacted  among  us  according  to 
God,  that  we  may  live  quietly  and  peaceably  together  in  all  godliness 
and  honesty.  Mo.  8.  D.  4,  1639,  as  attests  our  hands."  Thirty-five  signers, 
John  Wheelwright  the  first  one. 

ADDITIONAL    QUOTATIONS. 

The  following  quotations  are  given  here  because  sources  are  so  scat- 
tered and  difficult,  therefore,  for  the  average  historical  student  to  use. 
E.  Pemberton :  On  the  Power  and  Limitations  of  Magistrates.  Massa- 
chusetts Election  Sermon,  1710. 

"The  Power  of  the  greatest  Potentate  on  Earth  is  not  Inherent  in 
him,  but  is  a  Derivative.  .  .  For  God  is  the  Source  and  Original  of  all 
Power ;  there  is  no  Power  but  what  is  derived  from  him,  depends  on 
him,  is  limited  by  him,  and  is  subordinate  to  him,  and  accountable.  .  . 
Rulers  are  to  be  the  Guardians  of  their  Peoples'  Religion  and  Property, 
their  Liberties,  Civil  &  Sacred.  .  ."  God,  the  Lord  Paramount  of  Heaven 
and  Earth,  governs  not  by  unaccountable  will  but  by  stable  measures. 
"Hence  Rulers,  of  all  Orders,  ought  to  conform  to  and  regulate  them- 
selves in  all  their  Administrations,  by  this  Divine  Standard.  .  .  They 
must  govern  themselves  by  unalterable  principles,  and  fixed  Rules,  and 
not  by  unaccountable  humours,  or  arbitrary  will.  .  .  It  is  a  Statute  of 
the  Great  Law-giver  of  the  World,  that  they  which  Rule  over  Men  be 
Just.  .  .Rulers  have  Power,  but  it  is  a  limited  Authority;  limited  by  the 
Will  of  God,  and  Right  Reason,  by  the  General  Rules  of  Government, 
and  the  particular  Lawes  Stated  in  a  Land  .  .  .  'Hence,  this  Character  of 
Rulers  [Gods]  requires.  .  .  That  they  take  care  that  Righteous  Laws  be 
Enacted,  none  but  such,  and  all  such,  as  are  necessary  for  the  Safety  of 
the  Religion  &  Liberties  of  a  People.  .  .  Rulers  must  be.  .  .  Just  to  the 
Laws  and  the  Established  Constitution  they  are  under :  .  .  .  God  Himself 
has  called  you  Gods ;  but  those  that  are  not  skilful,  thoughtful  vigilant 
and  active  to  promote  the  Publick  Safety  and  Happiness,  are  not  Gods 
but  dead  Idols.  .  .  ."  Honor  and  reverence  are  due  to  Rulers  as 
God's  delegates  .  .  .  "it  can  never  go  well  with  a  People,  when 
Government  is  brought  into  Contempt.  Government  has  something  too 
Divine  in  it  to  be  insulted,  and  rudely  treated."  So  the  seeds  of  faction 
and  sedition  must  be  carefully  suppressed.  "I  am  not  Ignorant  to  what 
an  extravagant  height  the  Doctrine  of  Submission  to  Rulers  has  been 


Appendix  A  175 

carry'd  by  some,  and  I  wish  I  could  see  no  danger  of  the  Contrary 
Extream  of  depressing  it  to  a  meer  Nullity.  Extreams  on  both  hands 
are  to  be  avoided;  for  both  are  dangerous  to  a  State.  The  One  may 
Expose  a  People  to  the  Oppression  of  Sullen  Tyranny;  the  Other  to 
the  Confusions  of  Lawless  Anarchy :  .  .  .  Doubtless  God  has  not  left 
a  State  without  a  Regular  Remedy  to  Save  itself,  when  the  Funda- 
mental Constitution  of  a  People  is  overturned ;  their  Laws  and  Liberties, 
Religion  and  Properties  are  openly  Invaded,  and  ready  to  be  made  a 
Publick  Sacrifice.  But  on  the  other  side  it  is  beyond  me  to  imagine  that 
the  God  of  Order  has  ever  invested  any  men  of  a  Private  Station,  who 
can  with  a  Nodd  inflame  and  raise  the  Multitude  with  a  Lawless  Power, 
on  pretence  of  Public  Mismanagements,  to  Embroyl  the  State,  Overturn 
the  Foundations  of  Government."1 

J.  Barnard:  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1734,  pp.  23-27. 

"For  where,  (as  in  mixed  Government  especially,)  there  are  peculiar 
Rights  and  Powers  belonging  to  the  Throne,  and  some  peculiar  Rights 
and  Priviledges  belonging  to  the  People;  and  where,  again,  the  Rights 
and  Powers  of  the  Throne  are  branched  out,  and  divided  among  the 
several  Partners  in  Rule,  to  each  their  proper  Portion ;  nothing  is  more 
plain  than  that,  Righteousness  requires,  that  no  one  invade  the  Right 
that  peculiarly  belongs  to  another.  ...  So  that  it  is  the  first  Point 
of  Righteousness  in  a  State,  to  act  upon  the  Constitution ;  because  every 
Part  of  the  Government,  .  .  .  have  as  full  and  just  Right  ...  in  and 
to  that  Part  of  Power,  or  to  those  Priviledges,  which  are  assigned  and 
made  over  to  them,  in  the  very  Foundation  of  the  Government,  as  any 
Man  has,  or  can  have,  to  what  he  calls  his  own ;  .  .  .  the  Rulers  are  to 
govern  according  to  Law.  When  the  Kingdom  was  founded  in  Israel, 
Samuel  wrote  the  Manner  of  the  Kingdom  in  a  Book,  and  laid  it  up 
before  the  Lord,  .  .  .  that  it  might  be  their  Magna  Charta,  the  fuda- 
mental  [sic!]  Constitution  of  the  Kingdom,  and  the  standing  Rule  of 
their  Government  for  the  future.  .  .  .  Thus  it  will  be  found,  ...  an 
equal  departure  from  the  Rule  of  Righteousness,  to  wrest  the  Sword  out 
of  the  Hand  of  him  to  whom  the  Constitution  has  committed  it,  as  to 
snatch  the  Purse  from  those  that  have  the  keeping  of  it.  .  .  Thus  Right- 
eousness in  Rulers  requires  them  to  adjust  all  the  Parts  of  their  Adminis- 
tration to  the  true  Rights,  Liberties,  and  Priviledges  of  the  Subject. 
These  are  various  in  their  Kind,  and  more  or  less,  in  Number,  and 
Degree,  according  to  the  Nature  of  the  Constitution,  and  are  in  wrought 
into  it ;  .  .  .  There  is  nothing  a  people  are  more  tender  of  than  These. 
.  .  .  will  not  be  persuaded  easily  to  part  with  them.  .  .  .  No  Sum  would 
be  tho't  too  much  to  be  given  for  the  peculiar  Priviledges  of  some 
People,  nor  can  they  be  defended  at  too  dear  a  Rate;  and  therefore 
These  ought  to  be  preserved  inviolate,  .  .  .  Hence  it  is  the  highest 
Point  of  Righteousness,  in  the  Rulers  of  a  People,  the  primary  Design 
of  whose  Institution  was  to  secure  the  Community  in  their  Rights,  to 
be  very  careful  to  maintain  entire,  and  untouched,  those  natural  and 
civil,  Liberties,  and  Priviledges,  which  are  the  Property  of  every  Member 
of  the  Society.  .  .  ." 

1  Pemberton  favored  the  establishment  of  a  Synod.  The  Connecticut  Election 
Sermon  of  1712  by  John  Woodward  is  so  much  like  this  that  it  seems  as  if  he  must 
have  read  Pemberton.  However,  he  lays  less  weight  on  the  dignity  of  rulers  and 
more  upon  the  good  of  the  people. 


176         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

J.  Eliot :  Connecticut  Election  Sermon,  1738,  p.  36. 

Eliot  defines  the  difference  between  a  legal  and  a  despotic  government. 
All  such  as  have  "true  Sentiments  of  Liberty,"  he  asserts,  "must  have 
terrible  Ideas  of  Arbitrary  &  Despotick  Government"  but  the  difference 
between  them  is  not  thoroughly  understood.  "Arbitrary  Despotick  Gov- 
ernment, is,  When  this  Sovereign  Power  is  directed  by  the  Passions, 
Ignorance  &  Lust  of  them  that  Rule.  And  a  Legal  Government  is,  When 
this  Arbitrary  &  Sovereign  Power  puts  itself  under  Restraints,  and  lays 
itself  under  Limitations,  in  all  Instances  where  they  see  it  Either  pos- 
sible or  probable,  that  the  Exercise  of  this  Sovereign  Power  may  prove 
or  have  proved  Prejudicial  or  Mischievous  to  the  Subject :  Even  this  is  an 
Act  of  Sovereign  Power.  This  is  what  we  call  a  Legal  Limited  &  well 
Constituted  Government.  Under  such  a  Government  only  there  is  true 
Liberty." 

C.  Chauncey:  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1747,  pp.  15-16. 

In  speaking  of  the  British  constitution  Chauncey  says,  "If  the  pre- 
rogatives of  the  King  are  sacred,  so  also  are  the  rights  of  Lords  and 
Commons."  If  either  oversteps  its  rights  or  invades  those  of  another 
part  "the  law  of  righteousness  is  violated :  ...  if  one  part  of  the 
government  is  really  kept  from  exerting  itself,  according  to  the  true 
meaning  of  the  constitution,  .  .  .  the  designed  ballance  is  no  longer 
preserved;  and  which  side  soever  the  scale  turns,  whether  on  the  side 
of  sovereignty,  or  popularity,  'tis  forced  down  by  a  false  weight,  which 
by  degrees,  will  overturn  the  government,  at  least,  according  to  this 
particular  model."  And  the  case  is  the  same  in  dependent  governments, 
especially  where  the  derived  constitution  is  divided  into  several  ruling 
parts.  Here  also  the  constitution  is  evidently  the  "grand  rule  to  all 
cloathed  with  power,  or  claiming  priviledge,  in  either  branch  of  the 
government." 

E.  Williams :  A  seasoiiable  plea  .  .  .  1744,  pp.  2-6. 

"Reason  teaches  us  that  all  Men  are  naturally  equal  in  Respect  of 
Jurisdiction  or  Dominion  one  over  another.  Altho  true  it  is  that  Children 
are  not  born  in  this  full  State  of  Equality,  yet  they  are  born  to  it.  .  .  . 
For  God  having  given  Man  an  Understanding  to  direct  his  Actions, 
has  given  him  therewith  a  Freedom  of  Will  and  Liberty  of  Acting, 
as  properly  belonging  thereto,  within  the  Bounds  of  that  Law  he  is 
under :  ...  So  that  we  are  born  Free  as  we  are  born  Rational.  .  .  . 
This  natural  Freedom  is  not  a  Liberty  for  everyone  to  do  what  he 
pleases  without  any  Regard  to  any  Law;  for  a  rational  Creature  cannot 
but  be  made  under  a  Law  from  its  Maker :  But  it  consists  in  a  Freedom 
from  any  superior  Power  on  Earth,  and  not  being  under  the  Will 
or  legislative  Authority  of  Man,  and  having  only  the  law  of  Nature  (or 
in  other  Words,  of  its  Maker)  for  his  Rule.  .  .  .* 

"But  because  in  such  a  State  of  Nature,  every  Man  must  be  Judge 
of  the  Breach  of  the  Law  of  Nature  and  Executioner  too  (even  in  his 
own  Case)  and  the  greater  Part  being  no  strict  Observers  of  Equity 
and  Justice;  the  Enjoyment  of  Property  in  this  State  is  not  very  safe. 
Three  Things  are  wanting  in  this  State  (as  the  celebrated  Lock  observes) 

1  "The  Rights  of  Magna  Charta  depend  not  on  the  Will  of  the  Prince,  or  the 
Will  of  the  Legislature,  but  they  are  the  inherent  natural  Rights  of  Englishmen; 
secured  and  confirmed  they  may  be  by  the  Legislature,  but  not  derived  from  nor 
dependent  on   their  Will"    (p.    65). 


Appendix  A 177 

to  render  them  safe;  viz.  an  established  known  Law  received  and 
allowed  by  Common  Consent  ...  a  known  and  indifferent  Judge  .  .  . 
a  Power  to  back  and  support  the  Sentence  when  right.  .  .  .  Now  to 
remedy  these  Inconveniences,  Reason  teaches  Men  to  join  in  Society, 
to  unite  together  into  a  Commonwealth  under  some  Form  or  other,  to 
make  a  Body  of  Laws  agreeable  to  the  Law  of  Nature,  and  institute 
one  common  Power  to  see  them  observed.  ...  It  is  they  who  thus  unite 
together,  viz.  the  People,  who  make  and  alone  have  Right  to  make 
the  Laws  that  are  to  take  Place  among  them ;  or  which  comes  to  the 
same  Thing,  appoint  these  who  shall  make  them,  and  who  shall  see 
them  Executed.  .  .  . 

"Hence  then  the  Foundation  and  Original  of  all  civil  Power  is  from 
the  People,  and  is  certainly  instituted  for  their  Sakes ;  or  in  other 
words,  .  .  .  The  great  End  of  Civil  Government,  is  the  Preservation 
of  their  Persons,  their  Liberties  and  Estates,  or  their  Property.  ...  I 
mean  not  that  all  civil  Governments  (or  so  called)  are  thus  constituted : 
(tho'  the  British  and  some  few  other  Nations  are  through  a  merciful 
Providence  so  happy  as  to  have  such.)  1.  There  are  too  too  many  arbi- 
trary Governments  in  the  World.  .  .  .  These  are  not  properly  speaking 
Governments  but  Tyrannies ;  and  are  absolutely  against  the  Law  of  God 
and  Nature.  But  I  am  considering  Things  as  they  be  in  their  own 
Nature,  what  Reason  teaches  concerning  them." 

Arguments  Concerning  the  Stamp  Act 
The  Rev.  Ebenezer  Devotion  not  only  preached  against  the  Stamp 
Act  but  also  issued  in  1766  a  pamphlet  in  answer  to  one  from  London.1 
This  was  a  terse,  sharp  reply,  extreme  in  sentiment  and  hinting  at  dis- 
union. Answering  the  claim  that  Parliament  had  jurisdiction  over  the 
colonies  in  all  cases  whatsoever,  Devotion  said  that  were  it  true  it  would 
involve  the  slavery  of  millions.2  He  argued  that  by  their  charters  the 
colonial  assemblies  had  the  right  of  taxation  and  that  ten  thousand 
violations  of  it  could  not  abridge  the  right.3  In  annulling  these  rights 
Parliament  had  been  guilty  of  a  breach  of  faith.  "What  but  compact," 
he  said,  "annexes  the  colonies  to  the  british  empire,  rather  than  to  the 
states  of  Holland?"  He  ridiculed  the  arguments  of  early  discovery.  If 
one  part  of  these  contracts  is  annulled,  the  whole  is  destroyed.  Men  who 
claim  the  contrary  "cut  the  hand  of  union,  and  would  maim  the  british 
empire."4  If  England  must  control  the  colonies  for  their  protection,  cer- 
tainly she  could  well  do  so  merely  for  the  sake  of  the  trade.  France, 
Holland  or  Spain  would  surely  be  glad  to  offer  protection  for  such  trade. 
"Such  an  argument  must  lead  eventually  to  the  loss  of  the  colonies  to  the 
empire.5 

A  meeting  was  held  in  Lyme,  Connecticut,  on  the  second  Tuesday  of 
January,  and  its  resolves  were  sent  to  the  New  London  Gazette  and 
published  in  other  papers.  This  meeting  followed  the  December  sermon 
of  Stephen  Johnson  and  shows  great  similarity  of  argument. 

"1.  That  we  have  an  inviolable  Right  by  the  God  of  Nature;  as  we'll 
as  by  the  English  Constitution,  (and  is  unalienable  even  by  ourselves) 
to  those  Privileges  and  Immunities  which  by  the  Execution  of  the  Stamp 
Act  we  shall  be  forever  stript  and  deprived. 

1 E.   Devotion,   The  Examiner  Examined,   1766. 

1  Ibid.,   pp.    3-7.    "The   subjects   of   the   most   absolute  despotick   prince   upon   the 
globe,  are  not  more  finish'd  slaves." 
8  Ibid.;  also  pp.  7-10,   15-17. 
4  Ibid.,    pp.    13-14. 
sIbid.,    pp.   23-24. 


178         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

"2.  That  we  are  unalterably  fixt  to  defend  our  aforesaid  Rights  and 
Immunities  by  every  lawful  Way  and  Means,  against  every  unjust 
Attack. 

"3.  That  our  Aversion  and  Threats  to  any  Person  in  public  Character, 
or  others  in  the  Colony,  is  and  shall  be  on  Account  and  according  as  they 
are  more  or  less  engaged  and  active,  directly,  or  indirectly,  to  carry  into 
Execution  the  detestable  and  oppressive  Stamp  Act,  which  would  be  an 
indelible  Stain  to  England's  Glory,  and  perpetual  Chains  to  American 
Liberty.  .  .  . 

"7.  That  whereas  we  conceive  the  general  Safety  and  Privileges  of 
all  the  Colonies  to  depend  on  a  firm  Union  in  the  support  of  the  British 
Constitution,  we  therefore  do  Declare  we  will  do  our  utmost  to  resist 
all  such  Enemies  to  His  Majesty  and  the  British  Constitution  as  shall 
attempt  to  disposses  the  Colonies  of  their  most  sacred  Rights,  and  will 
be  ready  on  all  Occasions  to  assist  our  Fellow  Subjects  in  the  neigh- 
boring Provinces  to  repel  all  violent  Attempts  which  may  be  made 
to  subvert  their  &  our  Liberties"  (Conn.  Courant,  Jan.  27,  1766). 
Letter  on  Jan.  23,  1766  in  the  supplement. 

D.  S.  Rowland:  Thanksgiving  Sermon,  Providence,  1766. 

"Taxed  at  a  time  when  they  were  fatigued  and  financially  exhausted  by 
a  long  war,  they  naturally  wished  to  question  its  equity  and  when  it 
appeared  contrary  to  the  principles  of  the  English  Constitution  their 
zeal  was  aroused  to  prevent  the  blow."  "It  is  certain  we  are  free  born, 
and  that  this  our  native  freedom,  cannot  be  alienated  but  by  conquest, 
or  voluntary  consent.  ...  As  this  is  our  native  right,  antecedent  to 
any  politic  system,  so  it  is  the  criterion  and  glory  of  every  state, 
founded  on  just  and  reasonable  principles.  ...  It  is  our  happiness  under 
English  government  to  enjoy  whatever  we  have  a  natural  right  to. 
.  .  ."  (p.  27).  He  urged  loyalty  to  King  and  Parliament  "wherever  it 
doth  not  evidently  infringe  its  fundamental  principles,"  and  declared 
one  advantage  of  the  trouble  to  be  a  better  understanding  of  their 
essential  connection  and  dependence  and  the  nature  of  their  rights  and 
their  ability  to  defend  them.   (pp.  25,  30). 

Arguments,  1774-1781. 

Letters  by  Reverend  John  Cleaveland  to  Essex  Gazette,  April  18  and  25, 

1775,  showing  his  reaction  to  Lexington  and  Concord  and  his 

inflamatory  attack  on  Tories. 

"To  the  Inhabitants  of   New  England,  Greeting. 
Men,  Brethren  and  Fathers : 

"Is  the  time  come,  the  fatal  era  commenced,  for  you  to  be  deemed 
rebels,  by  the  Parliament  of  Great  Britain?  Rebels!  Wherein?  Why,  for 
asserting  that  the  rights  of  men,  the  rights  of  Englishmen  belong  to 
us.  .  .  .  But  subdue  us  to  a  subjection  unto  the  supreme  legislation  and 
taxation  authority  of  the  British  Parliament  over  the  Colonies  without 
their  consent,  they  will  not,  they  shall  not !  .  .  .  Great  Britain,  adieu ! 
No  longer  shall  we  honor  you  as  our  mother ;  you  are  become  cruel ; 
you  have  not  so  much  bowels  as  the  sea  monsters  towards  their  young 
ones  ...  by  this  stroke  you  have  broken  us  off  from  you,  and  effectu- 
ally alienated  us  from  you.  .  .  .  O  Britain !  see  you  to  your  own  house. 

"King  George  the  Third,  adieu !  No  more  shall  we  cry  to  you  for 
protection.  .  .  .  Your  breach  of  covenant ;  your  violation  of  faith ;  .  .  . 


Appendix  A  179 

have  dissolved  our  allegiance  to  your  Crown  and  Government.  .  .  . 
O  George !  see  thou  to  thine  own  house.  .  .  . 

"O  my  dear  New  England,  hear  thou  the  alarm  of  war !  The  call  of 
Heaven  is  to  arms !  to  arms !  .  .  .  Behold  what  all  New  England  must 
expect  to  feel,  if  we  don't  cut  off  and  make  a  final  end  of  those 
British  sons  of  violence,  and  of  every  base  Tory  among  us,  or  con- 
fine the  latter  to  Simsbury  mines.  .  .  . 

"We  are,  my  brethren,  in  a  good  cause;  and  if  God  be  for  us,  we 
need  not  fear  what  man  can  do.  .  .  . 

"O  thou  righteous  Judge  of  all  the  earth,  awake  for  our  help.  Amen 
and  Amen." 

A  circular  letter  issued  by  "College  Party",  Jan.  30,  1777,  signed 

"Republican" 

(Chase,  History  of  Dartmouth  College,  I.  431  ff.1) 

".  .  .  We  have  set  out  to  defend  the  rights  of  human  nature  against 
invasions  from  abroad ;  but  what  is  our  condition  in  the  mean  time  at 
home  ?  A  bare  conquest  over  one  enemy  is  not  enough ;  and  nothing  short 
of  a  form  of  government  fixed  on  genuine  principles  can  preserve  our 
liberties  inviolate.  .  .  .  Believe  me,  my  Countrymen,  if  we  do  not  settle 
our  affair  at  home  as  to  the  principles  of  free  government  while  we 
are  settling  them  abroad,  it  will  finally  be  too  late.  .  .  .  We  have  doubt- 
less among  us  tyrants  enough  at  heart,  though  not  unalterable  in  power. 
And  if  we  follow  the  advice  of  puny  patriots,  we  shall  exchange  the 
gallows  for  fagots.  ...  It  is  observed  by  Mr.  Burgh,  in  his  Disquisi- 
tions, that  a  time  of  danger  is  the  most  favorable  to  correct  abuses 
in  a  civil  state.  Apply  that  thought  to  the  present  case.  Examine  every 
corruption,  and  especially  of  that  fundamental  principle,  the  mode  of 
representation,  lstly.  Has  each  incorporated  town  any  distinct  powers? 
2dly.  Is  each  incorporated  town  vested  with  any  legislative  privileges? 
If  so,  then  let  it  have  an  independent  weight  in  the  legislature  of  the 
State,  as  far  as  the  said  distinct  privileges  may  intitle.  3rdly.  Has  one 
incorporated  town  as  much  power  in  itself  as  another?  Then  it  may 
claim  the  same  weight  in  government.  4thly.  Does  every  State,  small 
as  well  as  large  have  equal  weight  in  the  American  Congress?  If  so 
then  every  town  incorporate  has  the  same  right  in  the  assemblies  of 
each  State.  In  short,  a  political  body  that  superintends  a  number  of 
smaller  political  bodies  ought  necessarily  to  be  composed  by  them, 
without  any  regard  to  individuals. 

"We  proceed  to  observe  that  the  declaration  of  independency  made 
the  antecedent  form  of  government  to  be  of  necessity  null  and  void ; 
and  by  that  act  the  people  of  the  different  colonies  slid  back  into  a 
state  of  nature,  and  in  that  condition  they  were  to  begin  anew.  But 
has  it  been  so  in  the  government  of  New  Hampshire?  I  ask  how  shall 
we  know  that  independency  has  been  proclaimed,  if  we  only  consult 
the  civil  oeconomy  of  this  state?  ...  I  ask  again,  what  advantage  inde- 
pendency has  been  of  to  this  government,  since  it  had  the  same  legisla- 
ture before  as  after  the  declaration?  Think  on  these  matters:  and 
though  it  is  now  late,  yet  that  very  consideration  proves  the  necessity  of 
dissolving  soon  the  present  unconstitutional  legislature  and  planting  the 
seed  anew. 

"But  if  it  be  still  asserted  that  the  legislative  constitution  is  founded 
on  independency,   it  will  prove,  if  anything,  that  this  very  constitution 

1  Chase,  I.  431,  note,  says  that  there  is  only  one  copy  in  existence;  it  is  in  the 
writing  of  John  Wheelock,  but  the  "style  indicates  a  different  author." 


180        The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

established  independency  itself,  before  it  was  proclaimed  by  the  con- 
gress. All  power  originates  from  the  people.  A  state  of  independency 
before  a  plan  of  government  is  formed,  supposes  the  whole  right  to  be 
vested  in  them  who  by  a  full  representation  are  to  rear  a  new  fabric. 
But  it  has  not  been  so  in  the  present  case ;  for  this  very  assembly,  which 
was  in  being  before  the  declaration  of  independency,  has  dictated  the 
regulations,  that  took  place  afterwards.  The  grossest  absurdity,  which 
will  appear  in  one  word  [is],  viz.,  the  legislature  over  the  people  before 
independence  was  unconstitutional,  and  deprived  them  of  their  fights, 
yet  this  very  unconstitutional  legislature  has  marked  out  their  liberties 
for  them  in  the  state  of  independency.  As  much  as  to  say,  an  unconsti- 
tutional body  have  made  a  constitutional  one.  Would  to  God  that  you 
might  carefully  weigh  these  matters,  and  that  every  one  would  measure 
them  by  the  feelings  in  his  own  mind." 

The  paper  then  discusses  the  question  of  expense  to  small  towns  if 
each  has  its  representative  and  says  such  an  argument  is  absurd.  "It  is  no 
fantom,  but  on  this  very  point  the  foundation  of  your  liberties  stand." 
It  urges  no  yielding  in  right  of  each  incorporated  town  to  a  representa- 
tive and  in  demanding  a  convention  called  to  "fix  on  a  new  plan  of  gov- 
ernment, which  can  be  the  only  proper  seal  of  your  concurrence  in 
independency." 

Jonas  Clark:  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon  of  1781. 
(Hudson:  History  of  Lexington,  pp.  339-341) 

".  .  .  'Tis  not  indeed  pretended  that  any  one  man  or  number  of  men 
have  any  natural  right  or  superiority,  or  inherent  claim  of  dominion 
or  governmental  authority  over  any  other  man  or  body  of  men.  All 
men  are  by  nature  free  and  equal  and  independent  in  this  matter.  It  is 
in  compact,  and  in  compact  alone,  that  all  just  government  is  founded. 
The  first  steps  in  entering  into  society,  and  towards  the  establishment 
of  civil  government  among  a  people,  is  the  forming,  agreeing  to,  and 
ratifying  an  original  compact  for  the  regulation  of  the  state — describing 
and  determining  the  mode,  departments,  and  powers  of  the  government, 
and  the  rights,  privileges  and  duties  of  the  subjects."  This  must  be  done 
by  the  whole  body  of  the  people,  or  by  leaders  or  delegates  of  their 
choice.  This  right  of  the  people,  whether  emerging  from  a  state  of 
nature,  or  the  yoke  of  oppression,  is  an  unalienable  right.  It  cannot 
be  disposed  of  or  given  up  by  a  people,  even  though  ever  so  much 
inclined  to  sell  or  sacrifice  their  birthright  in  this  matter. 

"While  the  social  compact  exists,  the  whole  state  and  its  members 
are  bound  by  it ;  and  a  sacred  regard  ought  to  be  paid  to  it.  No  man, 
party,  order,  or  body  of  men  in  the  state  have  any  right,  power,  or 
authority  to  alter,  change,  or  violate  the  social  compact.  Nor  can  any 
change,  amendment,  or  alteration  be  introduced  but  by  common  consent. 
It  remains,  however,  with  the  community,  state  or  nation,  as  a  public, 
political  body,  at  any  time,  a.t  pleasure,  to  change,  alter,  or  totally  dis- 
solve the  constitution,  and  return  to  a  state  of  nature,  or  to  form  a 
new  government  as  to  them  may  seem  meet.  These  principles  being 
admitted,  it  is  evident  that  no  man  or  body  of  men,  however  great  or 
good — no  nation,  kingdom  or  power  on  earth,  hath  any  right  to  make  or 
impose  a  constitution  of  government  upon  a  free  people. 

"Equality  and  independence  are  the  just  claim — the  indefeasible  birth- 
right of  men.  In  a  state  of  nature,  as  individuals,  in  society,  as  states 
or  nations,  nothing  short  of  these  ever  did  or  ever  will  satisfy  a  man 


Appendix  A  181 

or  a  people  truly  free — truly  brave.  When  opportunity  offers,  and  power 
is  given,  it  is  beyond  dispute  the  duty  of  the  subjected  nation  to  assert 
its  liberty ;  to  shake  off  the  foreign  yoke,  and  maintain  its  equality  and 
independence  among  the  nations. 

"The  principles  of  reason,  the  laws  of  nature,  and  the  rules  of  justice 
and  equity,  give  men  a  right  to  select  their  form  of  government.  Even 
God  himself,  the  supreme  ruler  of  the  world,  whose  government  is 
absolute  and  uncontrollable,  hath  ever  paid  a  sacred  attention  to  this 
important  right — hath  ever  patronized  this  interesting  claim  in  the  sons 
of  men.  The  only  constitution  of  civil  government  that  can  plead  its 
origin  as  direct  from  heaven,  is  the  theocracy  of  the  Hebrews ;  but  even 
this  form  of  government,  though  dictated  by  infinite  wisdom,  and  written 
by  the  finger  of  God,  was  laid  before  the  people  for  their  consideration, 
and  was  ratified,  introduced,  and  established  by  common  consent." 

Gad  Hitchcock:  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1774,  pp.  46-47. 

"Our  danger  is  not  visionary,  but  real — Our  contention  is  not  about 
trifles,  but  about  liberty  and  property;  and  not  ours  only,  but  those  of 
posterity,  to  the  latest  generation.  .  .  .  For  however  some  few.  .  .  • 
even  from  among  ourselves,  appear  sufficiently  disposed  to  ridicule  the 
rights  of  America,  and  the  liberties  of  subjects,  'tis  plain  St.  Paul,  who 
was  a  good  judge,  had  a  very  different  sense  of  them — He  was  on  all 
occasions  for  standing  fast  not  only  in  the  liberties  with  which  Christ 
had  made  him  free  .  .  .  but  also  in  that  liberty,  with  which  the  laws 
of  nature,  and  the  Roman  state,  had  made  him  free  from  oppression 
and  tyranny." 

S.  West :  Massachusetts  Election  Sermon,  1776,  p.  51. 

".  .  .  They  are  robbing  us  of  the  inalienable  rights  that  the  God  of 
nature  has  given  us  .  .  .  and  has  confirmed  to  us  in  his  written  words. 
.  .  ."  (p.  12).  ".  .  .  tyranny  and  arbitrary  power  are  utterly  inconsis- 
tent with,  and  subversive  of  the  very  end  and  design  of  civil  govern- 
ment, and  directly  contrary  to  natural  law,  which  is  the  true  foundation 
of  civil  government  and  all  politick  law;  Consequently  the  authority  of 
a  tyrant  is  of  itself  null  and  void." 

J.  Lathrop:  Artillery  Sermon,  1774,  p.  15. 

The  "original  compacts  .  .  .  which  lie  in  the  foundation  of  all  civil 
societies,  may  not  be  disturbed.  A  single  article  may  not  be  altered  but 
with  the  consent  of  the  whole  body. — Whoever  makes  an  alteration  in 
the  established  constitution,  whether  he  be  a  subject  or  a  ruler,  is 
guilty  of  treason.  Treason  of  the  worst  kind :  Treason  against  the  state. 
.  .  .  That  we  may  and  ought,  to  resist,  and  even  make  war  against  those 
rulers  who  leap  the  bounds  prescribed  them  by  the  constitution,  and 
attempt  to  oppress  and  enslave  the  subjects,  is  a  principle  on  which  alone 
the  great  revolutions  which  have  taken  place  in  our  nation  can  be  justi- 
fied. A  principle  which  has  been  supported  by  the  most  celebrated 
Divines  as  well  as  civilians."  Note.  "Luther,  Calvin,  Melancthon, 
Zuinglius,  .  .  .  and  the  reformers  in  general"  (pp.  23-24). 


182         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

Elisha  Fish:  A  Discourse  at  Worcester,  1775,  pp.  13-14. 

"The  covenant  between  prince  and  people  most  naturally  represents 
the  covenant  between  God  and  his  creatures.  God  creates  his  people, 
therefore  they  are  bound  to  a  sacred  regard  of  the  covenant  of  their 
creator :  But  the  people  in  a  political  sense  create  the  prince ;  therefore 
this  covenant  should  be  maintained  with  the  greatest  regard  of  any 
social  covenant  of  a  civil  nature  on  earth,  and  the  breach  of  this  cove- 
nant is  greater  on  the  side  of  the  Prince  than  the  people,  for  it  is 
against  the  whole  body.  ...  If  the  prince  sin  against  the  subjects, 
it  is  against  his  political  creators,  and  in  that  view  highly  aggri- 
vated." 


APPENDIX  B 

Clergymen  on  Town  Committees  and  in  Provincial 
Congresses  and  Conventions.1 

New  Hampshire 

John  Adams,  Durham. 

Committee  to  send  help  to  Boston.  Letter  written  by  him,  per 

haps  with  assistance  of  Major  John  Sullivan,  who  was  also  on 

Committee.   (Stackpole,  Hist,  of  N.  H.  II,  pp.  70-71.) 
Benj.  Bridgham,  Fitzwilliam. 

Only  delegate  to  Fourth  Prov.  Congress.   (Prov.  Papers,  VII, 

p.  470.) 
Jacob  Emery,  Pembroke. 

Chosen  Nov.  26,  1776  delegate  to  state  convention  at  Exeter  to 

consider  state  of  country.  Chairman  of  Com.  to  prepare  procla- 
mation for  day  of  fasting  and  prayer  (Carter  &  Fowler,  Hist. 

of  Pembroke,  pp.  110,  111,  269). 
Repres.  in.  Legis.,  Dec.  1776.  (p.  269). 
Stephen  Farrar,  New  Ipswich. 

Only  delegate  from  town  to  Fourth  Prov.  Cong.  (Prov.  Papers, 

VII.  470.)   On  com.  to  prepare  plan  for  ways  and  means  of 

furnishing  troops.  Three  clergymen  on  this  com.  with  several 

laymen  (p.  474). 
Com.  to  prepare  letter  to  Continental  Congress   (p.  480). 
Com.  to  make  draft  empowering  Com.  of  Pub.  Safety  and  Com. 

of  Supplies  to  act  in  recess  of  Congress  and  to  recommend 

Commissary  (p.  484.) 
"Chosen  to  meet  with  deputies  from  town  to  choose  delegates 

to  represent  the  province  in  a  Continental  Congress  at  Phila." 
mm  (N.  H.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  V.  15.) 
Elijah  Fletcher,  Hopkinston. 
Only  delegate  to  Fourth  Prov.  Cong.  (Prov.  Papers  VII,  p.  470.) 
Com.  to  prepare  draft  to  be  sent  to  towns  concerning  Tories 

(p.  474). 
Com.  to   draw  up  recommendations   to   save   rags    for   use   of, 

army  (p.  535). 
Com.  to  consider  sum  of  money  to  be  issued  and  plans  for  its 

emission  (pp.  638-639). 
Abiel  Foster,  Canterbury. 

One  of  two   delegates  to  Fourth  Prov.   Cong.    (Prov.  Papers, 

VII.  470.1 
*Edward  Goddard,  Swanzey. 

Delegate  to  Const.  Conv.  1781  (Read,  Hist,  of  Swanzey,  p.  872). 
*  Aaron  Hall,  Keene. 

Only  delegate  to  Const.  Conv.  1788  (ibid.). 

1  The  following  lists  are  very  incomplete.  Those  men  concerned  with  constitu- 
tional questions  are  starred.  Some  of  same  may  have  been  members  of  constitutional 
conventions,  but  the  title  Rev.  is  not  given  in  partial  lists  preserved.  Some  of 
the  names  are  the  same.  I  have  added  some  who  were  in  the  conventions  to 
ratify  the  Federal  Constitution  merely  to  show  that  their  interest  and  influence  in 
constitutional  questions  continued.  Abbreviations  have  been  used  where  the  meaning 
is  clear. 

[183] 


184         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

*Wm.  Hooper,  Madbury. 

Only  delegate  to  Const.  Conv.  1788  (ibid.). 
*  Samuel  Langdon,  Hampton  Falls  and  Seabrook. 

Only  delegate  to  Const.  Conv.  1788  (ibid.). 
♦Amos  Moody,  Pelham. 

Only  delegate  to  Const.  Conv.  1788  (ibid.). 
John  Page,  Hawke. 

Only   delegate   to   Fourth    Prov.    Cong.    (Prov.   Papers,   VII. 
668). 
James  Pike,  Somersworth. 

Said  to  be  "common  scrivener  for  the  whole  parish.  .  .  .  Hardly 
a  legal  document  during  that  period  was  made  out  in  any  other 
handwriting  than  his  own"    (Scales,  Hist,  of  Strafford  Co., 
p.  220). 
Jonathan  Searle,  Mason. 

Member  and  Clerk  of  Hillsborough  County  Congress,  May,  1775, 
held  at  Amherst,  N.  H. 

On  Com.  of  this  County  Congress  to  "act  on  any  affairs  that 
may  come  before  them  or  any  score  of  them  to  be  a  Corram 
to  act  till  further  orders"  (Prov.  Papers,  VII.  449-50). 

Com.  of  Public  Safety ;  its  duty  was  to  keep  the  county  from 
"declining  into  a  state  of  Nature" ;  it  was  for  a  time  the  only 
local   government    (Boylston,   Hist.   Sketch    of  Hillsborough 
County  Congress,  p.  19). 
Josiah  Stearnes,  Epping. 

Member  First  Prov.  Cong.  (Farmer  and  Moore,  Hist.  Coll., 
I,  259-60). 

One  of  two  delegates  sent  by  town  to  Fourth  Prov.  Cong., 
meeting  May  17,  1775  (Prov.  Papers,  VII.  469). 

Com.  to  draw  up  rules  (p.  471). 

Com.  to  plan  for  ways  and  means  of  furnishing  troops  (p.  474). 

Com.  to  make  a  Draught  of  a  letter  in  answer  to  one  from 
Congress  of  Mass.  Bay  to  one  to  Continental  Cong.  On  this 
Committee  two  clergymen  and  one  layman  (p.  478). 

Com.  to  make  draft  empowering  Com.  of  Public  Safety  and 
Com.  of  Supplies  to  act  in  recess  of  Congress  and  to  recom- 
mend Commissary   (p.  484). 

Com.  to  draw  up  resolves  for  taking  up  deserters  (p.  535). 
*Benj.  Thurston,  North  Hampton. 

Only  delegate  to  Const.  Conv.   1788   (State  Papers  N.  H.,  X, 
2-7). 
Timothy  Upsham,  Deerfield. 

Only  delegate  from  town  to  Fourth  Prov.  Cong.  (Prov.  Papers, 
VII.  470). 
Timothy  Walker,  Concord. 

Member  of  First  Prov.  Cong.  (Moore,  Collections,  Topog.  .  .  . 
of  N.  H.,  p.  238). 

Member    of    Third    Prov.    Cong.,    meeting   Exeter,    Apr.    1775. 
(Prov.  Papers,  VII.  454). 
♦Timothy  Walker,   Jr.,   Concord. 

Licensed  to  preach ;  preaching  occasionally  in  various  towns, 
but  not  settled.  Was  frequently  town  clerk,  selectman. 

Delegate  to  Provincial  Congresses. 

On  Com.  June  11,  1776  to  make  draught  of  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence to  be  transmitted  to  Delegates  in  Congress. 


Appendix  B 185 

Member   of   Com.  of   Safety    (Bouton,  Hist,  of   Concord,  pp. 

267,  269). 
Member  of   Council,   1777-1780   (Lyford,  Hist  of  Concord,  I, 

256,  II,  1360). 
Samuel  Webster,  Temple. 
Only  delegate  to  Fourth  Prov.  Cong.  (Prov.  Papers  VII,  470). 
Com.  to  draw  up  rules  (p.  471). 
Com.  to  prepare  plans  for  ways  &  means  of  furnishing  troops 

(p.  474). 
Com.  to  make  draft  of  letters  to  Cong,  of  Mass.  Bay  and  to 

Cont.  Cong.  (p.  478). 
Com.  of  Public  Safety  (p.  543). 

Com.  to  bring  in  plan  to  regulate  militia  of  colony  (p.  546). 
Com.  to  make  draft  for  establishing  &  encouraging  manufac- 
tures (p.  548). 
Eleazar  Wheelock,  Pres.  of  Dartmouth. 

Served  as  Justice  of  Peace,  1773  (Prov.  Papers,  VII.  17). 
Report  of  Com.  of  Safety  of  Hanover  and  Lebanon,  of  Jan.  2, 

1775  in  his  handwriting  (MS.  Papers,  Dartmouth  College,  no. 

776102). 
Paine  Wingate,  Hampton  Falls. 

One  of   two   delegates  to   Fourth  Prov.   Cong.,  May   17,   1775, 

(Prov.  Papers,  VII.  476). 
On  Com.  to  prepare  draft  to  be  sent  to  towns  concerning  Tories. 

Two  ministers  and  one  layman  on  Com.  (p.  474). 
♦Joseph  Woodman,  Sanbornton. 

Com.  chosen   by  town   to   draw  up  suggested  amendments  to 

Constitution,  1782  (Runnels,  Hist,  of  Sanbornton,  p.  133). 

Massachusetts.1 

*Jedediah  Adams,  Stoughton. 

Delegate  to  Const.  Conv.  1779  (Journal  of  Convention). 
*Noah  Alden,  Bellingham. 

Delegate  to  Const.  Conv.  1779  (ibid.). 
*Thomas  Allen,  Pittsfield. 
Chairman  of  Committee  of  Correspondence.    (Smith,  Hist,  of 

Pittsfield,  pp.  190,  199,  215  note). 
Com.  of  Instructions  to  delegate  to  Const.  Conv.  1779,  very  re- 
markable paper  (ibid.,  pp.  365-67). 
Drafted  county  memorial  1774  (ibid.,  p.  193  and  note). 
Wrote  petition  to  Legislature   concerning  a  constitution,    1775 

(ibid.,  p.  343). 
Wrote  petition  to  legislature  concerning  constitution  and  posi- 
tion of  Berkshire  towns,  1776  (pp.  351-355). 
Wrote    original    draft    of    instruction    to    representatives,    1777 

(ibid.,  pp.  363-4). 
Wrote  address  to  judges  adopted  by  county  convention  (364-365). 
Also  on  Com.  1768  "to  examine  the  Boston  letter  to  the  select- 
men" (ibid.,  p.  183). 
*Ebenezer  Chaplin,   Sutton. 

Delegate  to  Const.  Conv.  1779  (Journal  of  Convention). 
Chas.  Chauncey,  Boston. 

1  Committees  of  the   Constitutional   Convention  of   1779-80  on   which  clergy   served 
are  too  numerous  to  give.  See  Journal  of  the  Convention. 


186         The  Nezv  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

Com.  to  consider  and  report  declaration  "to  be  made  by  this  town 
to  Gr.  Britain  &  all  the  World",  1774  {Boston  Town  Records, 
1770-1777,  p.  183). 
*Jonas  Clark,  Lexington. 

Delegate  to  Mass.  Const.  Conv.  1779  (Hudson,  p.  409,  and 
Journal  of  Convention). 

On  town  Committee  to  consider  Const.  1779-1780  (Hudson, 
Hist,  of  Lexington,  pp.  409,  262-64). 

Drew  up  reasons  for  opposition. 

Probably  helped  many  town  committees  because  all  instructions 
to  Repres.  1762-1776  were  drawn  up  by  him ;  also  many  of 
later  date  {Proceedings,  Commemorative  of  Two  Hundredth 
Anniversary,  pp.  18-20 ;  Hudson,  Hist,  of  Lexington,  pp.  87- 
88,  342;  Sprague,  I,  517-18). 

(I  do  not  find  his  name  on  other  committees  in  town  records). 
Benj.  Conklin,  Leicester. 

Com.  of  Correspondence  (Washburn,  Hist.  Sketches  of  Leices- 
ter, p.  94). 

Member  of  a  "patriotic  convention".   Probably  on  other  com- 
mittees. 
*Henry  Cummings,  Billerica. 

Com.  of  town  1775,  to  "draw  up  proper  vote  to  present  to  the 
town"  concerning  drawing  up  of  form  of  Government  (Hazen, 
Hist,  of  Billerica,  pp.  238-239). 

Delegate  to  Const.  Conv.  1779  {ibid.,  also  p.  262;  Sprague,  VIII, 
57;  Journal  of  Convention). 

Resolution  of  town  meeting,  1773,  said  to  have  been  directed  by 
him,  as  were  many  others  (Hazen,  pp.  227-28,  262). 
*Nathan  Davis,  Dracut. 

Delegate  to  Const.  Conv.  1780  {Journal  of  Convention,  p.  171). 
*Elisha  Fisk,  Upton. 

Should  be  Fish,  so  given  in  Boston  Gazette,  Sept.  6,  1779. 

Delegate  to  Const.  Conv.  1779  (ibid.). 
*Jonathan  French,  Andover. 

Com.  chosen  1780  to  join  with  members  of  Const.  Conv.  "to 
make  such  remarks  and  amendments  in  the  Form  of  the  Con- 
stitution as  they  shall  think  proper"  (Bailey,  Hist.  Sketches  of 
Andover,  p.  356). 

"an  active  participant   in   town   affairs"    {ibid.,   p.  453).   Very 
probably  on  other  committees. 
*Jason  Haven,  Dedham. 

Delegate  to  Const.  Conv.  1779  (Mann,  Hist.  Annals  of  Dedham, 
p.  35;  Journal  of  Convention). 
Moses  Hemmingway,  Wells,  Me. 

Is  said  to  have  drawn  resol.  sent  by  town  committee  to  Com.  of 
Corres.  in  Boston.  1774   (Bourne,  Hist,  of  Wells  and  Ken- 
nebunk,  p.  465). 
*Increase  Hewins,  West  Stockbridge. 

Probably  delegate  to  Const.  Conv.  1779  {Journal  of  Conven- 
tion) . 

Is  called  Captain  in  list,  but  was  the  only  Hewins  and  Rev.  Mr. 
Hewins  prayed  while  clerical  members  were  praying  in  turn. 
*Gad  Hitchcock,  Pembroke. 

Delegate  to  Const.  Conv.  1779  (Sprague,  VIII,  29;  Journal  of 
Convention). 


Appendix  B  187 

Daniel  Hopkins,  Salem. 

Delegate    to    Prov.    Cong.,    1775.    Member    of    Council,    1778 
(Sprague,  I,  582). 
James  Lyon,  Machias,  Me. 

Chairman  of  Committee  of  Correspondence   (Frederic  Kidder, 
Military  Operations  in  Eastern  Maine  and  Nova  Scotia  dur- 
ing the  Revolution,  Albany,    1867.   Chiefly   from  orig.  docu- 
ments). Was  very  ardent. 
Samuel  Mather,  Boston. 

On  same  com.  as  Chas.  Chauncey  (see  above). 
Moses  Morrill,  Biddeford,  Me. 

Said  to  have  been  very  influential  in  town  affairs ;  probably  on 
committees,  but  no  details  given  (Folsom,  Hist,  of  Sacco  and 
Biddeford,  pp.  279-80). 
John  Murray,  Boothbay,  Me. 

Delegate  to  Prov.  Cong.  1775  (Greene,  Boothbay,  Southport  and 
Boothbay,  p.  233). 
*Phillips  Payson,  Chelsea. 

Town  Com.  of  Corres.  1775  (Chamberlain,  Documentary  Hist, 
of  Chelsea,  II,  683). 

Com.  May  1780  to  consider  Const,  and  make  remarks  (ibid., 
pp.  546,  684). 

Delegate  to  Gen'l  Court,  1783  (ibid.,  pp.  304,  686).  Elected 
1784  but  declined. 

Delegate  to  Const.  Conv.  1787  (ibid.,  p.  687). 

Com.  1783  to  address  town  of  Boston  on  subject  of  a  reunion 
(ibid.,  p.  686)  -;  on  committees  of  later  date. 
♦Valentine  Rathbun,  Pittsfield. 

Delegate  to  various  county  congresses  over  which  he  presided 
(Smith,  Hist,  of  Pittsfield,  p.  178). 

Repres.  to  Legis.  1777  and  several  other  times  (ibid.,  pp.  178, 
356). 

Delegate  to  convocation  of  Berkshire  towns  to  consider  griev- 
ances, 1777  (ibid.,  p.  362). 

Com.  of  Instruction  to  delegates  to  Const.  Conv.  1779  (ibid., 
p.  365). 
*Joseph  Roberts,  Weston,  not  settled. 

Conj.  for  enlisting  soldiers. 

Delegate  to  Const.  Conv.  1779  (Washburn,  Hist.  Sketches  of 
Town  of  Leicester,  p.  92). 

Later,  repres.  to  Gen'l  Court. 

Active  in  Leicester  until  1762,  then  Weston. 
Joseph  Roby,  Lyme. 

Com.  of  Public  Safety,  1775  (Lewis  and  Newhall,  Hist,  of  Lyme, 
I.  340). 
*David  Sanford,  Medway. 

Is  said  to  have  mingled  with  assemblies  of  people  and  to  have 
taken  "leading  part  in  every  measure  adopted  for  a  vigorous 
defence  against  the  encroachments  of  Gt.  Britain"  (Headley, 
p.  361). 

Probably  on  committees. 

Delegate   to    Const.    Conv.    1779    (Journal   of   Convention,   pp. 
8-19,  40). 
Zedekiah  Sanger,  Duxbury. 

Repres.  to  Gen'l  Court,  1784  and  1787  (Bradford,  Biog.  Notices, 
p.  78). 


188         The  Nezv  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

*Daniel  Shute,  Hingham. 

Delegate  to  Const.  Conv.  1779  (Sprague,  VIII.  20;  Hijt.  of 
Town  of  Hingham,  I,  pt.  II,  pp.  44-45 ;  Journal  of  Con- 
vention). 

Delegate  to  Convention  to  ratify  Federal  Constitution  1788 
(Sprague,  VIII.  20;  Hist,  of  Hingham,  I,  pt.  II,  pp.  44-45). 

Is  said  to  have  "used  an  active  influence  in  forming  and  guid- 
ing public  opinion"  (Hist,  of  Hingham,  I,  pt.  II,  pp.  44-45). 
*Wm.  Symmes,  Andover. 

On  Com.  1780  with  Jonathan  French  (see  above). 
*Peter  Thacher,  Attleboro. 

Com.  to  draw  up  instructions  to  delegate,  May,  1776  (Daggett, 
Sketch  of  Hist,  of  Attleborough,  p.  122). 

Com.  to  instruct  delegate,  1777  (p.  124). 

Com.  1778  to  discuss  Art.  of  Confederation  and  instruct  dele- 
gate (pp.  124-25). 

Com.  to  consider  Const,  of  1778-1779,  1780  (p.  126). 
*Peter  Thacher,  Maiden. 

Com.  of  town  to  draw  up  instructions  to  delegate,  1774  (Corey, 
Hist,  of  Maiden,  p.  738). 

Com.  1774  to  see  that  Commission  officers  muster  inhabitants, 
etc.   (p.  739). 

Com.  1774,  to  prepare  agreement  respecting  obedience  to  officers 
to  be  signed  by  Alarm  and  training  lists  (p.  740). 

Com.  1774  to  care  for  money  collected  for  Boston  (p.  741). 

Com.  of  Correspondence  and  Safety,  1775-1776  (p.  730). 

Probably  wrote  instructions  to  delegates,  May  27,  1776  (pp. 
762-65). 

Also  much  to  do  with  long  series  of  town  papers  (pp.  721  ff.). 

Delegate  to  Prov.  Congress  and  chosen  to  write  account  of 
Bunker  Hill,  1775  (Loring,  Hundred  Boston  Orators,  p.  125). 

Delegate  to  Const.  Conv.,  1779-1780  (Corey,  pp.  671-72,  780- 
81;  Journal  of  Convention;  Loring,  p.  125;  Sprague,  I.  721). 

Also  on  other  less  important  committees  (Corey,  pp.  749,  759). 
*Thos.  Thacher,  Dedham. 

Delegate  to    Const.    Conv.    1787-1788    (Mann,  Hist.  Annals  of 
Dedham,  p.  37). 
John  Treadwell,  Lyme. 

Com.   of   Public    Safety,    1775    (Lewis   and    Newhall,   Hist,   of 

Lyme,  I.  340).  Com.  composed  of  two  ministers  of  town  and 

one  deacon ;  was   "foremost  in  all  the  proceedings  of   town 

during  the  Revolution" ;  probably  on  many  other  committees. 

*Chas.  Turner,  Scituate. 

Had  been  pastor  in  Duxbury  till  1775,  then  lived  in  Scituate; 
not  settled.  Delegate  to  Const.  Conv.,  1779-1780  (Winsor, 
Hist,  of  Duxbury,  pp.  203-204). 

Also  member  of  Gen'l  Court,  1776;  later  of  Senate  (Bradford, 
Biog.  Notices  of  Distinguished  Men,  p.  403). 
*Habijah  Weld,  Attleborough. 

Town  Com.  1778-1779  to  consider  Const.  (Daggett,  Hist,  of 
Attleborough,  p.  126). 

Delegate  to  Conv.  to  act  upon  Federal  Const,  (ibid.). 
*Samuel  West,  Dartmouth. 

Delegate  to  Const.  Conv.  1779   (Journal  of  Convention). 

Delegate  to  Convention  ratifying'  Fed.  Const.  1788;  influential 
in  both  (Sprague,  VIII.  40). 


Appendix  B  189 

♦Samuel  West,  Needham. 

Com.  chosen  by  town  in  1780  to-consider  Const.  (Clark,  Hist,  of 
Needham,  p.  168). 
♦Joseph  Willard,  Beverly. 

Com.   to  report  on   Const,   of    1778    (Stone,   Hist   of  Beverly, 

P-68)- 
Com.  to  draft  instructions  to  delegate  giving  reason  for  dissent 

(ibid.). 
Com.  1780  to  report  on  Const.  (Thayer,  Address  in  Beverly,  p. 

54). 
Is  said  to  have  been  frequently  on  committees  of  town  and  con- 
stantly in  consultation  with  leading  citizens. 
Elhanan  Winchester,  Brookline. 

Repres.  to  Mass.   Legis.    1778    (Bolton,  Hist,   of  Brookline,  p. 
248). 

Connecticut* 
Parke  Avery,  Groton. 

Com.  of  Inspection,  1775   (C.  R.  Stark,  Groton,  Conn.,  pp.  86, 

161.  246). 
Mem.  of  Assembly,  1776  (probably  the  same  man).  A  Baptist. 
Ebenezer  Devotion,  Windham. 
Delegate  to  Gen'l.  Assembly,  1765  (Larned,  Hist,  of  Windham 

Co.,  II.  54;  Cent.  Papers,  Gen'l.  Conf.  Conn.,  p.  69). 
Com.  of  Corres.  and  various  other  com.    (Probably  the  same 
man,    may   have    been   his    son ;    Windham    Revol.    Records, 
PP.  7  ff.). 
Elizur  Goodrich,  Durham. 

Had  more  than  1000  votes  from  region  round  about  for  Gov- 
ernor  (Sprague,  I.  510). 
No  details  about  committees,  but  very  active  in  neighborhood. 
Mark  Leavenworth,  Waterbury. 
Com.  app't.  by  General  Assembly  to  arouse  people  to  "use  and 
exert  themselves  with  the  greatest  expedition"  to  reenforce 
continental  army   {Cent.  Papers,  Gen'l.  Conf.  Conn.,  p.  69). 
State  Com.  for  raising  troops  (ibid.). 
Samuel  Newel,  Farmington. 
Com.  to  consider  regulations  of  15th  of  March,  1777,  and  report 
opinion  (Farmington  Revol.  Records,  p.  7). 
Timothy  Pitkin,  Farmington. 

On  same  committee  as  Newel  (ibid.). 

3  The  few  towns  and  county  histories  which  have  been  read  show  that  many 
ministers  were  very  zealous  in  guiding  town  affairs,  but  give  no  details.  Copies 
of  town  records  in  Conn.  State  Library  do  not  give  ministers  as  members  of  com- 
mittees, unless  names  are  given  without  the  prefix  Rev.  In  some  towns  there  prob- 
ably was  a  layman  of  the  same  name  as  the  minister. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

ABBREVIATIONS 

A.  A.  S.         American  Antiquarian  Society 

B.  P.  L.  Boston  Public  Library 

C.  H.  S.  Connecticut  Historical  Society 

C.  S.  L.  Connecticut  State  Library 

D.  C.  L.  Dartmouth  College  Library 
J.  C.  B.  L.     John  Carter  Brown  Library 

M.  H.  S.  Massachusetts  Historical  Society 

M.  S.  L.  Massachusetts  State  Library 

N.  L.  Newberry  Library 

N.  H.  H.  S.  New  Hampshire  Historical  Society 

N.  Y.  P.  L.  New  York  Public  Library 

Y.  C.  L.  Yale  College  Library 

MANUSCRIPTS 

Andrews  and  Eliot  Letters,  1662-1811.  M.  H.  S. 

Cole,  Nathan.  Ye  Spiritual  travels  of  Nathan  Cole  &c.  C.  H.  S. 

Colman  Papers,  2  vols.  M.  H.  S. 

Ecclesiastical  Papers,  vols.  XI,  XII.  M.  S.  L. 

Ecclesiastical  Papers,  vols.  VII,  VIII,  X,  XV.  C.  S.  L. 

Extracts  from  Conn.  Town  Revol.  Records,  1774-1784,  vols.  1-63.  C.  S.  L. 

Hollis  Papers,  1759-1771.  M.  H.  S. 

Letter  of  Rev.  Dr.  Richard  Salter  to  William  Williams,  Jan.  18,  1776. 

C.  H.  S. 
Letter  of   Rev.   Samuel   Cooper  to   Benjamin   Franklin,   June   1,    1778. 

Franklin  Papers,  Univ.  of  Pa.  Library. 
Letters  and  Papers,  1761-1776.  M.  H.  S. 
Lexington  Town  Records. 
Oliver,  Peter.  The  Origin  &  Progress  of  the  American  Rebellion  to  the 

year  1776  in  a  letter  to  a  Friend,  F.  L.  Gay  Transcripts.  M.  H.  S. 
Separate  Papers,  vol.  I,  1733-1772.  C.  H.  S. 
Smith,  Rev.  Hezekiah,  Diary,  Aug.  1773-April,  1778.  M.  H.  S. 
State  Papers,  Vermont  Controversy,  1764-1791.  N.  H.  H.  S. 
Weare  Papers,  vol.  IV.  N.  H.  H.  S. 
Wheelock  Papers  and  other  MSS.  D.  C.  L. 

NEWSPAPERS 

The  Boston  Chronicle,  Dec.  21,  1767- June  25,  1770.  M.  H.  S. 

The  Boston  Gazette,  1772-1774,  1778-1780.  M.  H.  S. 

Boston  Post  Boy,  1774.  M.  H.  S. 

Boston  Weekly  News-Letter,  1740-1741.  M.  H.  S. 

Connecticut  Courant,  1766.  C.  H.  S. 

Essex  Gazette,  1770-1775 ;  after  1775,  Independent  Chronicle.  M.  H.  S. 

Hartford  Courant,  1777.  A.  A.  S. 

New  London  Gazette,  Sept.-Dec.  1765.  Y.  C.  L. 

Massachusetts    Gazette    &   Boston   News-Letter,    1740-1742,    1765-1774, 

1775-Feb.  1776.  M.  H.  S. 
Massachusetts  Spy  or  American  Oracle  of  Liberty,  pub.  at  Worcester 
1775-1780.  M.  H.  S. 

[190] 


Bibliography  191 


PRINTED  SOURCES 

Sermons:  Collections 

Moore,  Frank,  ed.  The  Patriot  Preachers  of  the  American  Revolution, 
with  Biographical  Sketches.  N.  Y.,  1862.  N.  L.  Sermons  by  Jonathan 
Mayhew,  Samuel  Langdon,  Jacob  Duche,  Wm.  Smith,  John  Zubly, 
Wm.  Gordon,  Nath.  Whitaker,  Oliver  Hart,  Samuel  Stillman,  John 
Rodgers,  Geo.  Duffield. 

Thornton,  J.  W.  The  Pulpit  of  the  American  Revolution.  Boston,  1860. 
Sermons  by  Mayhew,  1750 ;  Chas.  Chauncey,  1766 ;  Samuel  Cooke, 
1770 ;  Wm.  Gordon,  1774 ;  Samuel  Langdon,  1775 ;  Samuel  West, 
1776;  Phillips  Pavson,  1778;  Simeon  Howard,  1780;  Ezra  Stiles, 
1783. 

Convention  Sermons 

Appleton,  Nathaniel.  Faithful  Minister  of  Christ.  Boston,  1743.  N.  L. 

Balch,  Wm.  Simplicity  and  godly  Sincerity,  in  a  Christian  Minister,  the 
sure  Way  to  Happiness.  Boston,  1760.  N.  L. 

Barnard,  John.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  the  only,  and  Supream  Head  of 
the  Church.  Boston,  1738.  N.  L. 

Bellamy,  Joseph.  The  Law,  our  Schoolmaster.  Preached  before  the 
Association  of  Litchfield  Co.,  Conn.,  1756.  New  Haven.  Y.  C.  L. 

Chauncey,  Chas.  Minister  cautioned  against  the  Occasion  of  Contempt. 
Boston,  1744.  N.  L. 

Clark,  Peter.  The  Advantages  and  Obligations  arising  from  the  Oracles 
of  God  committed  to  the  Church  and  its  Ministry.  Boston,  1745.  N.  L. 

Gay,  Ebenezer.  The  True  Spirit  of  a  Gospel  Minister  represented  and 
urged.  Boston,  1746.  N.  L. 

Holyoke,  Edward.  The  Duty  of  Ministers  of  the  Gospel  to  guard 
against  the  Pharasaism  and  Sadducism  of  the  Present  Day.  Boston, 
1741.  N.  L. 

Locke,  Samuel.  A  Sermon  Preached  before  the  Ministers  of  the  Prov- 
ince of  the  Massachusetts-Bay.  Boston,  1772.  N.  L. 

Rand,  Wm.  Gospel  Ministers  should  be  chiefly  concerned  to  please  God, 
and  not  Men,  in  the  discharge  of  their  Office.  Boston,  1757.  N.  L. 

Stiles,  Ezra.  A  Discourse  on  the  Christian  Union,  the  substance  of 
which  was  delivered  before  the  Reverend  Convention  of  the  Congre- 
gational Clergy  in  the  Colony  of  Rhode  Island.  April  23,  1760. 
Brookfield,  Mass.,  1799.  1st.  ed.,  Boston,  1761. 

Townsend,  Solomon.  Convention  Sermon,  1771.  Newport. 

Rowland,  D.  S.  Catholicism.  Providence,  1772. 

Tucker,  John.  Ministers  considered  as  Fellow-workers,  who  should  be 
Comforters  to  each  other,  in  the  Kingdom  of  God.  Boston,  1768. 
N.  L. 

Sermons  on  Artillery  Election  Day,  to  Militia  or  Army 

Adams,  Zabdiel.  A  Sermon  Preached  .  .  .  in  Lunenburg ,  Neiv  England, 
on  Monday,  January  2d,  1775,  To  a  Detached  Company  of  Militia 
there.  Boston,  1775.  J.  C.  B.  L. 

Barnard,  Thomas.  A  Sermon  .  .  .  to  the  Ancient  and  Honourable 
Artillery  Company  in  Boston  .  .  .  June  5,  1758.  .  .  .  Boston,  1758. 
M.  H.  S. 

Bird,  Samuel.  A  Sermon,  Delivered  In  New-Haven,  April  27th,  1759. 
To  Col.  David  Wooster,  and  His  Company.  .  .  .  New-Haven,  1759. 
J.  C.  B.  L. 

Bridge,  Ebenezer.  Artillery  Election  Sermon,  1752.  Boston,  1752.  B.  P.  L. 


192         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

Chauncey,  Chas.  Sermon  Preached  at  the  Desire  of  the  Honourable 
Artillery-Company.  .  .  .  June  3,  1734.  Boston,  1734.  Y.  C.  L. 

Clark,  Jonas.  The  Importance  of  Military  Skill,  Measures  for  Defence 
and  a  martial  Spirit,  in  a  Time  of  Peace.  Artillery  Election  Sermon, 
June,  1768.  Boston,  1768.  M.  H.  S. 

Cogswell,  James.  God,  The  pious  Soldiers'  Strength  &  Instruction;  A 
Sermon  .  .  .  at  Brooklyn  in  Pomfret,  to  the  Military  Company, 
Under  the  Command  of  Capt.  Israel  Putnam.  .  .  .  April,  1757.  Bos- 
ton, 1757.  M.  H.  S. 

Cooper,  Samuel.  Artillery  Election  Sermon,  1751.  Boston,  1751.  B.  P.  L. 

Howard,  Simeon.  A  Sermon  Preached  To  the  Ancient  and  Honourable 
Artillery-Company,  in  Boston  .  .  .  June  7th,  1773.  Boston,  1773. 
M.  H.  S. 

Lathrop,  John.  A  Sermon  Preached  To  the  Ancient  and  Honourable 
Artillery-Company,  in  Boston  .  .  .  June  6th,  1774.  Boston,  1774. 
M.  H.  S. 

Morrill,  Isaac.  The  Soldier  exhorted  to  Courage  in  the  Service  of  his 
King  and  Country,  from  a  Sense  of  God  and  Religion.  Sermon  at 
Wilmington,  Apr.  3,  1755,  to  Capt.  Phineas  Osgood  and  His  Com- 
pany of  Soldiers.  Boston,  1755.  M.  H.  S. 

Peabody,  Oliver.  A  Sermon  Preached  before  the  Honourable  Artillery- 
Company  .  .  .  June  5,  1732.  Boston,  1732.  M.  H.  S. 

Pemberton,  Ebenezer.  A  Sermon  Preached  to  the  Ancient  and  Honour- 
able Artillery-Company  .  .  .  June  7,  1756.  Boston,  1756.  M.  H.  S. 

Shute,  Daniel.  A  Sermon  Preached  To  the  Ancient  and  Honorable 
Artillery  Company  .  .  .  June  1,  1767.  Boston,  1767.  M.  H.  S. 

Fast  and  Thanksgiving  Sermons 

Adams,  Amos.  Religious  Liberty  an  invaluable  Blessing.  Tivo  sermons, 

Roxbury,  Dec.  3,  1767.  Boston,  1768.  C.  H.  S.  (Thanks.  Ser.) 
Adams,  William.  A  Discourse  Delivered  at  New-London,  October  23d, 

A.  D.  1760.  New-London,  1761.  C.  H.  S.  (Thanks.  Ser.) 
Allin,  James.   A    Thanksgiving  Sermon  .  .  .  At   Brooklin,  Nov.   8th, 

1722.  Boston,  1722.  C.  H.  S. 
Appleton,  Nathaniel.  A  Thanksgiving  Sermon  on  the  Total  Repeal  of 

the  Stamp  Act.  Boston,  1766. 
Apthorp,  East.  A  Sermon  on  the  General  Fast,  Friday,  December  13, 

1776.  .  .  .  London,  1776.  J.  C.  B.  L. 
Avery,  David.  Thanksgiving  Sermon  at  Greenwich,  in  Connecticut,  Dec. 

18,  1777.   Norwich,  1778.   C.  H.   S.    (Chaplain  to   Col.  Sherburne's 

Regiment.) 
Baldwin,  Ebenezer.  The  Duty  of  Rejoicing  under  Calamities  and  Afflic- 
tions .  .  .  ,  Preached  at  Danbury,  Nov.  16, 1775.  N.  Y.,  1776.  Y.  C.  L. 

(Thanks.  Ser.) 
Champion,  Judah.   A   brief   View   of   the   Distresses,  Hardships   and 

Dangers  our  Ancestors  encounter'd,  in  settling  New-England  .  .  . 

Two  Sermons  on  Gen'l   Fast,  Litchfield,  Apr.   18,  1770.  Hartford, 

1770.  C.  H.  S. 
Chauncy,  Chas.  A  Discourse  On  the  good  News  from  a  far  Country. 

Boston,  1766.  N.  L. 
Emerson,  Joseph.  A  Thanksgiving  Sermon  Preach' d  at  Pepper  ell,  July 

24,  1766.  .  .  .  Boston,  1766.  M.  H.  S. 
Fish,  Elisha.  Joy  and  Gladness;  A  Thanksgiving  Discourse,  Preached 

in  Upton,  .  .  .  May  28,  1766.  Providence,  1767.  J.  C.  B.  L. 


Bibliography  193 


Hilliard,  Timothy.  The  duty  of  a  People  under  the  oppression  of  Man, 
to  seek  deliverance  from  God.  The  Substance  of  Two  Sermons,  De- 
livered at  Barnstable,  July  14th,  1774.  Boston,  1774.  A.  A.  S.  (Fast 
Day  Ser.) 

Johnson,  Stephen.  Some  Important  Observations  Occasioned  by,  and 
adapted  to,  The  Publick  Fast,  .  .  .  December  18th,  A.  D.  1765.  New- 
port, 1766.  C.  H.  S. 

Mayhew,  Jonathan.  The  Snare  broken:  a  Thanksgiving  Discourse 
.  .  .  May  23,  1766.  2nd  ed.  reprinted,  Boston,  1766. 

Patten,  Wm.  A  Thanksgiving  Sermon.  Boston,  1766.  N.  L. 

Rowland,  David  S.  Divine  Providence  Illustrated  and  Improved.  A 
Thanksgiving  Discourse  .  .  .  in  Providence  .  .  .  June  4, 1766.  Provi- 
dence. J.  C.  B.  L. 

Sherwood,  Samuel.  A  Sermon,  Containing  Scriptural  Instructions  to 
Civil  Rulers,  and  all  Free-born  Subjects  .  .  .  public  Fast,  August 
31,  1774.  With  an  Address  to  the  Freemen  of  the  Colony.  Also,  An 
Appendix,  Stating  the  heavy  Grievances  the  Colonies  labour  under 
from  several  late  Acts  of  the  British  Parliament,  .  .  .  By  the  Rev. 
Ebenezer  Baldwin,  of  Danbury.  New  Haven.  Y.  C.  L. 

Skillman,  Isaac.  An  Oration,  Upon  the  Beauties  of  Liberty,  Or  the 
Essential  Rights  of  the  Americans.  Delivered  .  .  .  in  Boston,  Upon 
the  last  Annual  Thanksgiving  1772.  (4th  ed.  carefully  corrected, 
Boston,  1773,  signed  "A  British  Bostonian",  is  attributed  both  to 
Skillman  and  to  John  Allen,  but  by  most  to  Skillman.  See  p.  276, 
note  35.)  J.  C.  B.  L. 

Stillman,  Samuel.  Sermon  on  the  Repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act  .  .  .  Bos- 
ton, May  17,  1766.  Boston,  1766.  J.  C.  B.  L. 

Webster,  Samuel.  The  Misery  and  Duty  of  an  Oppress'd  and  enslai/d 
People,  represented  in  a  Sermon  Delivered  at  Salisbury,  July  14, 
1774.  Boston,  1774.  N.  L.  (Fast  Day  Ser.) 

Whitney,  Peter.  The  Transgression  of  a  Land  punished  by  a  multitude 
of  Rulers  .  .  .  two  Discourses  delivered  July  14,  1774.  Boston,  1774. 
A.  A.  S.  (Fast  Day  Ser.) 

Election  Sermons 

The  list  here  given  is  chronological  and  includes  only  those  used  in  this  study 
Others,  and  especially  those  of  the  17th  century,  deal  also  with  government.  Many 
can  be  found  in  libraries  other  than  those  named.  Yale,  the  Boston  Public  Library, 
and  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  have  especially  good  collections.  The  best  article  on  the  election 
sermons  is  that  by  Lindsay  Swift  (Mass.  Col.  Soc.  Pub.,  I.  388-451).  The  election, 
artillery,  convention,  and  other  sermons  were  sometimes  printed  under  a  special 
title,  sometimes  simply  as  Election  or  Convention  Sermon. 

Connecticut 

1674  Fitch,  James  (Norwich).  Y.  C.  L. 

1677  Hooker,  Samuel  (Farmington).  Cambridge,  1677.  Y.  C.  L. 

1685  Wakeman,  Samuel  (Fairfield).  Boston,  1685.  Y.  C.  L. 

1686  Whiting,  John  (Hartford).  Y.  C.  L. 

1710  Adams,  Eliphalet   (New  London).   The  Necessity  of  Judgment 

and  Righteousness  in  a  Land.  New  London,  1710.  Y.  C.  L. 

1711  Buckingham,  Stephen   (Norwalk).  New  London,  1711.  Y.  C.  L. 

1712  Woodward,   John    (Norwich).   Civil  Rulers  are  God's  Ministers, 

for  the  Peoples  Good.  Boston,  1712.  Y.  C.  L. 

1713  Bulkley,  John  (Colchester).  Y.  C.  L. 


194         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

1714  Whitman,  Daniel  (Farmington).  Practical  Godliness  the  Way  to 

Prosperity.  New-London,  1714.  Y.  C.  L. 

1715  Moss,  Joseph    (Darby).  An  Election  Sermon  .  .  .  The  Discourse 

sheweth,  That  frequent  Readings  and  Studying  the  Scriptures 
and  the  Civil  Law  of  the  Common  Wealth,  is  Needful  and 
Profitable  for  Rulers.  New  London,  1715.  Y.  C.  L. 

1716  Stoddard,  Anthony  (Woodbury).  New  London,  1716.  Y.  C.  L. 

1717  Cutler,    Timothy    (Stratford).    The   Firm    Union   of  a  People 

Represented.  New-London,  1717.  Y.  C.  L. 

1718  Estabrook,   Samuel   (Canterbury).  A   Sermon  Shewing  that  the 

Peace  and  Quietness  of  a  People  is  a  main  part  of  the  Work  of 
Civil  Rulers.  New  London,  1718.  Y.  C.  L. 

1719  Chauncey,  Nathanael  (Durham).  Honouring  God  the  True  Way 

to  Honour.  New  London,  1719.  Y.  C.  L. 

1720  Hosmer,  Stephen  (East  Haddam).  1720.  Y.  C.  L. 

1721  Marsh,  Jonathan  (Windsor).  New-London,  1721.  Y.  C.  L. 

1722  Burnham,  Wm.  (Kensington).  God's  Providence  In  Placing  Men 

In  their  Respective  Stations  &  Conditions  Asserted  &  Shewed. 
New-London,  1722.  Y.  C.  L. 

1723  Williams,  Eleazar  (Mansfield).  New-London,  1723.  Y.  C.  L. 

1724  Woodbridge,  Samuel   (Hartford).  Obedience  to  the  Divine  Law, 

Urged  on  all  Orders  of  Men  And  the  Advantages  of  it  shew'd. 
New-London,  1724.  Y.  C.  L. 

1725  Mather,  Azariah    (Saybrook).  Good  Rulers  A   Choice  Blessing. 

New-London,  1725.  Y.  C.  L. 

1726  Fiske,    Phineas    (Haddam).   The   Good   Subject's  Wish   or  The 

Desirableness  of  the  Divine  Presence  with  Civil  Rulers.  New- 
London,  1726.  Y.  C.  L. 

1727  Woodbridge,  Samuel  (Hartford).  Jesus  Christ  doth  Actually  Reign 

on  the  Earth.  New-London,  1727.  Y.  C.  L. 

1728  Buckingham,  Thos.    (Hartford).  God's  Favour  To  His  Chosen 

People,  in  Leading  them-  by  the  Ministry  of  Civil  &  Ecclesi- 
astical Rulers,  Well  Qualified  for  the  Offices  they  are  Called  to 
Execute.  New-London,  1729.  Y.  C.  L. 

1730  Russell,  Wm.  (Middletown).  New-London,  1731.  Y.  C.  L. 

1731  Whittelsey,  Samuel  (Wallingford).  A  Public  Spirit  Described  & 

Recommended.  New-London,  1731.  Y.  C.  L. 

1732  Edwards,  Timothy  (Windsor).  N.  London,  1732.  Y.  C.  L. 

1733  Adams,  Eliphalet  (New  London).  N.  London,  1734.  Y.  C.  L. 

1734  Chauncey,  Nathaniel  (Durham).  The  Faithful  Ruler  Described 

and  Excited.  N.  London,  1734.  Y.  C.  L. 

1736  Marsh,  Jonathan  (Windsor).  God's  Fatherly  Care  of  His  Coven- 

ant Children.  N.  London,  1737.  Y.  C.  L. 

1737  Colton,  Bent.  (Hartford).  N.  London,  1738.  Y.  C.  L. 

1738  Eliot,  Jared   (Killingworth).  Give  Cesar  his  Due,  Or,  The  Obli- 

gations That  Subjects  are  under  to  their  Civil  Rulers.  N.  London, 
1738.  Y.  C.  L. 

1740  Hemingway,  Jacob  (East  Haven).  N.  London,  1740.  Y.  C.  L. 

1741  Williams,  Solomon  (Lebanon).  Y.  C.  L. 

1742  Stiles,  Isaac  (North  Haven).  A  Prospect  of  the  City  of  Jerusalem. 

N.  London,  1742.  Y.  C.  L. 
1744  Worthington,  Wm.  (Saybrook).  The  Duty  of  Rulers  and  Teach- 
ers in  Unitedly  Leading  God's  People,  Urged  and  Explained.  N. 
London,  1744.  Y.  C.  L. 


Bibliography  195 


1745  Whitman,  Elnathan  (Hartford).  The  Character  and  Qualifica- 

tions of  good  Rulers,  and  the  Happiness  of  their  Administration. 
N.  London,  1745.  Y.  C.  L. 

1746  Hall,  Samuel  (New  Cheshire).  The  Legislatures  Right,  Charge 

and  Duty  in  respect  of  Religion.  N.  London,  1746.  Y.  C.  L. 

1747  Hunn,   Nathanael    (Reading).    The    Welfare  of  a   Government 

Considered.  N.  London,  1747.  Y.  C.  L. 

1748  Eells,  Nathanael  (Stonington).  The  Wise  Ruler  a  loyal  Subject. 

N.  London,  1748.  Y.  C.  L. 

1749  Todd,  Jonathan   (East  Guilford).  Good  Rulers  the  Ministers  of 

God,  for  Good  to  Men,  Or,  The  divine  Original  &  Authority  of 
Civil  Government  Asserted.  N.  London,  1749.  Y.  C.  L. 

1752  Woodbridge,  Ashbel  (Glastonbury) .  N.  London,  1753.  Y.  C.  L. 

1753  Devotion,  Ebenezer  (Windham).  The  civil  Ruler,  a  dignify 'd  Ser- 

vant of  the  Lord,  but  a  dying  Man.  N.  London,  1753.  Y.  C.  L. 

1754  Lockwood,  James  (Wethersfield).  C.  S.  L. 

1755  Dickinson,  Moses  (Norwalk).  N.  London,  1755.  C.  H.  S. 

1756  Beckwith,  Geo.  (Lyme).  That  People  A  safe,  and  happy  People, 

who  have  God  for,  and  among  them.  N.  London,  1756.  C.  S.  L. 

1757  Raynolds,  Peter  (Enfield).  The  Kingdom  is  the  Lord's;  Or,  God 

the  Supreme  Ruler  and  Governour  of  the   World.  N.  London, 
1757.  Y.  C.  L. 

1758  Throop,   Benj.    (Norwich).  Religion  and  Loyalty,  the  Duty  and 

Glory  of  a  People.  N.  London,  1758.  Y.  C.  L. 

1759  Lockwood,  James   (Wethersfield).  The  Worth  and  Excellence  of 

Civil  Freedom  and  Liberty  illustrated  and  a  Public  Spirit  and  the 
Love  of  our  Country  recommended.  N.  London,  1759.  Y.  C.  L. 

1760  Fish,  Joseph   (Stonington).  Christ  Jesus  the  Physician.  N.  Lon- 

don, 1760.  Y.  C.  L. 

1761  Ingersoll,  Jonathan  (Ridgfield).  N.  London,  1761.  C.  S.  L. 

1762  Bellamy,  Joseph  (Bethlem).  N.  London,  1762.  Y.  C.  L. 

1763  White,  Stephen  (Windham).  Civil  Rulers  Gods  by  Office  and  the 

Duties    of   such   Considered   and   Enforced.    N.    London,    1763. 
Y.  C.  L. 

1764  Welles,    Noah    (Stamford).    Patriotism   Described   and   Recom- 

mended. N.  London,  1764.  C.  S.  L. 

1765  Dorr,   Ed.   (Hartford).   The  Duty  of  Civil  Rulers,  to  be  nursing 

Fathers  to  the  Church  of  Christ.  Hartford,  C.  S.  L. 

•  1768  Salter,  Richard  (Mansfield).  N.  London.  1768.  C.  S.  L. 
1769  Williams,  Eliphalet  (Hartford).  Hartford.  C.  S.  L. 

#1771  Cogswell,  James  (Canterbury).  N.  London,  1771.  Y.  C.  L. 
-  1772  Leavenworth,  Mark  (Waterbury).  N.  London.  C.  S.  L. 

*  1773  Wetmore,  Izrahiah  (Stratford).  Y.  C.  L. 

"  1774  Lockwood,  Samuel  (Andover).  Civil  Rulers  an  Ordinance  of  God, 
for  Good  to  Mankind.  N.  London,  1774.  Y.  C.  L. 

1775  Perry,  Joseph  (East  Windsor).  Hartford,  1775.  Y.  C.  L. 

1776  Champion,   Judah    (Litchfield).    Christian  and  civil  Liberty   and 

Freedom   considered  and  recommended.  Hartford,   1776.   N.   Y. 
P.  L. 

1777  Devotion,  Ebenezer  (Savbrook).  The  Duty  and  Interest  of  a  Peo- 

ple to  sanctify  the  Lord  of  Hosts.  Hartford,  1777.  Y.  C.  L. 

1778  Whittelsey,  Chauncy  (New  Haven).  The  importance  of  religion 

in  the  civil  Ruler,  Considered.  New  Haven,  1778.  C.  S.  L. 

1779  Dana,  James  (Wallinsjford).  Hartford,  1779.  C.  S.  L. 

1780  Williams,  Nathan  (Tolland).  Hartford,  1780.  C.  S.  L. 
1783  Stiles,  Ezra.  Sermon,  1783.  N.  Haven,  1783. 


196         The  New  England  Clergy  and  'the  Revolution 

Massachusetts 

1661  Norton,  John  (Published  1664).  Y.  C.  L. 

1669  Davenport,  John.  Mass.  Col.  Soc.  Pub.,  X. 

1701  Belcher,  Joseph  (Dedham).  The  Singular  Happiness  of  such 
Heads  or  Rulers  As  are  able  to  Chuse  out  their  Peoples  Way, 
and  will  also  Endeavour  their  Peoples  Comfort.  B.  P.  L. 

1703  Stoddard,  Solomon  (Northampton).  The  Way  for  a  People  To 
Live  Long  in  the  Land  that  God  Hath  given  them.  Boston,  1703. 
B.  P.  L. 

1707  Belcher,  Samuel  (Newbury)  An  Essay  Tending  to  Promote  the 
Kingdom  Of  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Boston,  1707.  B.  P.  L. 

1710  Pemberton,  Ebenezer  (Boston).  The  divine  Original  and  Dignity 
of  Government  Asserted.  Boston,  1710.  Y.  C.  L. 

1719  Williams,  William  (Hatfield).  A  Plea  for  God,  and  An  Appeal 
to  the  Consciences  of  a  People  Declining  in  Religion.  Boston, 
1719.  B.  P.  L. 

1722  Hancock,  John  (Lexington).  Rulers  should  be  Benefactors.  Bos- 
ton, 1722.  B.  P.  L. 

1728  Breck,  Robert  (Marlborough).  The  only  Method  to  Promote  the 

Happiness  of  a  People  and  their  Prosperity.  Boston,  1728.  B.  P.  L. 

1729  Wise,  Jeremiah  (Berwick).  Rulers  the  Ministers  of  God  for  the 

Good  of  their  People.  Boston,  1729.  B.  P.  L. 

1734  Barnard,  John  (Marblehead).  The  Throne  Established  by  Right- 
eousness, Boston,  1734.  B.  P.  L. 

1736  Holyoke,  Ed.  Boston,  1736.  N.  L. 

1738  Webb,  John  (Boston).  The  Government  of  Christ  considered  and 
applied.  Boston,  1738.  B.  P.  L. 

1742  Appleton,  Nathaniel   (Cambridge).  Boston,  1742.  N.  L. 

1744  Allen,  James  (Brookline).  Magistracy  and  Institution  of  Christ 
upon  the  Throne.  Boston,  1744.  B.  P.  L. 

1747  Chauncey,  Chas.  (Boston).  Civil  Magistrates  must  be  just  ruling 

in  the  Fear  of  God.  Boston,  1747.  B.  P.  L. 

1748  Lewis,   Daniel    (Pembroke).   Good  Rulers   the  Fathers  of   their 

People,  And  the  Marks  of  Honour  due  to  them.  Boston,  1748. 
B.  P.  L. 

1750  Phillips,    Samuel    (Andover).    Political   Rulers   Authoris'd   and 

Influenc'd  by  God  our  Saviour,  to  decree  and  execute  Justice. 
Boston,  1750.  B.  P.  L. 

1751  Welsteed,   Wm.    (Boston).   The  Dignity  and  Duty  of   the   Civil 

Magistrate.  Boston,  1751.  B.  P.  L. 
1754  Mayhew,  Jonathan  (Boston).  Boston,  1754,  N.  L. 
1756  Cooper,  Samuel  (Boston).  Boston,  1756.  N.  L. 

1758  Frink,  Thos.   (Rutland).  A  King  reigning  in  Righteousness,  and 

Princes  riding  in  Judgment.  Boston,  1758.  B.  P.  L. 

1759  Parsons,  Joseph  (Brookfield).  Boston,  1759.  N.  L. 

1760  Dunbar,  Samuel  (Stoughton).  Boston,  1760.  N.  L. 

1761  Stevens,  Benjamin  (Kittery,  Me.).  Boston,  1761.  N.  L. 
1763  Barnard,  Thos.  (Salem).  Boston,  1763.  N.  L. 

1765  Eliot,  Andrew  (Boston).  Boston,  1765.  B.  P.  L. 

1766  Barnard,  Ed.  (Haverhill).  Boston,  1766.  N.  L. 

1767  Bridge,  Eben.  (Chelmsford).  Boston,  1767.  N.  L. 

1768  Shute,  Daniel  (Hingham).  Boston,  1768.  N.  L. 

1769  Haven,  Jason  (Dedham).  Boston,  1769.  B.  P.  L. 

1770  Cooke,  Samuel  (Arlington).  Boston,  1770.  N.  L. 

1773  Turner,  Chas.  (Duxbury).  Boston,  1773.  N.  L. 

1774  Hitchcock,  Gad  (Pembroke).  Boston,  1774.  N.  L. 

1775  Gordon,  Wm.  (Roxbury).  Watertown,  1775.  N.  L. 


Bibliography  197 


1775  Langdon,   Samuel    (Cambridge).   Watertown,    1775.  Reprinted  in 

Thornton. 

1776  West,  Samuel  (Dartmouth).  Boston,  1776.  N.  L. 

1777  Webster,  Samuel  (Salisbury).  Boston,  1777. 

1778  Payson,  Phillips  (Chelsea).  Boston,  1778.  Reprinted  in  Thornton. 
1780  Cooper,  Samuel  (Boston).  Boston,  1780.  B.  P.  L. 

1780  Howard,  Simeon   (Boston).  Boston,  1780.  Reprinted  in  Thornton. 

1781  Clark,  Jonas  (Lexington).  Boston,  1781.  M.  H.  S. 

Vermont 

1778  Burroughs,  Eden  (Hanover,  N.  H.).  A  Sincere  Regard  to  Right- 
eousness and  Piety,  the  sole  Measure  of  a  true  Principle  of  Honor 
and  Patriotism.  Dresden,  Vt.  D.  C.  L. 

Miscellaneous  Sermons,  Chiefly  Political 

Appleton,  Nathaniel.  A  Funeral  Sermon  Occasioned  By  the  Death  of 
the  Honourable  Spencer  Phips,  Esq.  Preached  At  the  Public  Lecture 
in  Boston.  Boston,  1757.  Y.  C.  L. 

Backus,  Isaac.  The  Substance  of  an  Address  to  an  Assembly  in  Bridge- 
water,  March  10,  1779.  Providence.  Y.  C.  L. 

Baldwin,  Samuel.  A  Sermon,  Preached  at  Plymouth,  December  22, 
1775.  Boston,  1776.  M.  H.  S. 

Baxter,  Simeon.  Tyrannicide  proved  Lawful.  Printed  in  America.  Re- 
printed in  London,  1782.  J.  C.  B.  L. 

Belcher,  Samuel.  An  Assise  Sermon,  1702.  Boston,  1707.  B.  P.  L. 

Chaplin,  Ebenezer.  Civil  Government  Compared  to  Rivers,  all  under 
God's  control,  and  what  People  have  to  do  when  Administration  is 
grievous.  In  a  Discourse  Delivered  in  Sutton,  2d.  Parish,  January  17, 
1773.  Being  the  Day  preceding  the  Town  Meeting,  which  then  stood 
Adjourned  To  consider  and  Act  upon  the  Letter,  &c  From  Boston 
.  .  .  Boston,  1773.  M.  H.  S.  First  22  pp.  only. 

Checkley,  Samuel.  The  Duty  of  a  People  to  Lay  to  Heart  and  Lament 
the  Death  of  a  Good  King  .  .  .  1727.  Boston.  M.  H.  S. 

Claek,  Jonas.  The  Fate  of  Blood-thirsty  Oppressors,  and  God's  tender 
Care  of  his  distressed  People.  .  .  .  Preached  at  Lexington,  April  19, 
1776  .  .  .  To  which  is  added,  A  brief  Narrative  of  the  principal 
Transactions  of  that  Day.  Boston,  1776.  M.  H.  S. 

Colman,  Benj.  Government  the  Pillar  of  the  Earth.  Boston,  1730.  N.  L. 

Colman,  Benj.  The  Fast  God  hath  Chosen.  Boston,  1734.  N.  L. 

Colman,  Benj.  The  Merchandise  of  a  People  Holiness  to  the  Lord. 
Boston,  1736.  N.  L.  _ 

Cooke,  Samuel.  The  violent  destroyed;  and  oppressed,  delivered  .  .  . 
Lexington,  Apr.  19,  1777.  Boston,  1777.  M.  H.  S. 

Croswell,  Andrew.  .  .  .  or,  A  seasonable  Defence  of  the  Old  Pro- 
testant Doctrine  of  Justifying  Faith.  Boston,  1745.  Y.  C.  L. 

Cushing,  Jacob.  Divine  judgments  upon  tyrants;  and  Compassion  to  the 
oppressed  .  .  .  Lexington,  Apr.  20,  1778.  Boston,  1778.  M.  H.  S. 

Dedham  Pulpit:  or  Sermons  by  the  Pastors  of  the  First  Church  in  Ded- 
ham  in  the  XVIIth  and  XVIIIth  Centuries.  Boston,  1840.  D.  C.  L. 
One  by  Samuel  Dexter,  1738,  and  one  by  Jason  Haven,  1758. 

Finley,  Samuel.  Christ  triumphing  and  Satan  raging.  Philadelphia 
Printed,  London  Reprinted,  1741.  N.  L. 

Fish,  Elisha.  A  Discourse  delivered  at  Worcester,  March  28,  1775.  At 
the  Desire  of  the  Convention  of  Committees  for  the  County  of  Wor- 
cester. Worcester,  1775.  J.  C.  B.  L. 


198         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

Foster,  Dan.  A  Short  Essay  on  Civil  Government,  The  Substance  of  Sir 
Sermons,  Preached  in  Windsor,  .  .  .  October,  1774.  Hartford,  1774. 
C.  H.  S. 

Foxcroft,  Thomas.  Some  Seasonable  Thoughts  on  Evangelic  Preaching 
.  .  .  Oct.  23,  1740.  M.  H.  S. 

Frothington,  Ebenezer.  A  Key  To  Unlock  the  Door,  That  lead  in,  to 
take  a  Fair  View  of  the  Religious  Constitution,  Established  by  Law, 
in  the  Colony  of  Connecticut.  1767.  C.  H.  S. 

Gordon,  Wm.  A  Discourse  Preached  In  the  Morning  of  December  15th, 
1774.  Boston,  1775.  M.  H.  S. 

Gordon,  Wm.  Sermon  Preached  December  15th,  1774,  and  Afterwards 
at  the  Boston  Lecture.  Boston,  1775.  M.  H.  S. 

Hart,  Levi.  Liberty  described  and  recommended;  in  a  Sermon  Preached 
To  The  Corporation  of  Freemen  in  Farmington,  at  their  Meeting 
.  .  .  September  20,  1774.  Hartford,  1775.  Y.  C.  L. 

Haven,  Samuel.  A  Sermon  occasioned  by  the  Death  of  King  George  the 
Second  .  .  .  1761.  Portsmouth,  1761.  A.  A.  S. 

Hitchcock,  Gad.  A  Sermon  Preached  at  Plymouth,  December  22d,  1774. 
Boston,  1775.  M.  H.  S. 

Holly,  Israel.  Sermon,  Preached  at  Suffield,  December  27,  1773.  The 
next  Sabbath  after  the  Report  arrived,  that  the  People  at  Boston  had 
destroyed  A  Large  Quantity  of  Tea  .  .  .  Rather  than  to  submit  to 
Parliament  Acts,  which  they  looked  upon  Unconstitutional,  Tyran- 
nical, and  tending  to  enslave  America,  .  .  .  with  some  Enlarge- 
ments. .  .  .  Hartford,  1774.  C.  H.  S. 

Langdon,  Samuel.  Joy  and  Gratitude  to  God  for  the  Long  Life  of  a 
Good  King  and  the  Conquest  of  Quebec.  Portsmouth,  1760.  D.  C.  L. 

Lathrop,  John.  A  Discourse  Preached  December  15th,  1774.  .  .  .  Bos- 
ton, 1774.  M.  H.  S. 

Lathrop,  John.  A  Discourse  Preached  on  March  the  Fifth,  1778.  Bos- 
ton, 1778.  M.  H.  S. 

Lathrop,  John.  Innocent  Blood  Crying  to  God  From  the  Streets  of 
Boston.  Boston,  1771.  M.  H.  S. 

Lowell,  John.  The  Advantage  of  God's  Presence  with  his  People  in  an 
Expedition  against  their  Enemies.  Boston,  1755.  D.  C.  L. 

Lyman,  Joseph.  A  Sermon  Preached  at  Hatfield,  December  15,  1774. 
Boston,  1775.  A.  A.  S. 

Mather,  Cotton.  Christian  Loyalty.  Boston,  1727. 

Mayhew,  Jonathan.  Christian  Sobriety;  being  Eight  Sermons.  Bos- 
ton, 1763.  N.  L. 

Mayhew,  Jonathan.  Sermons.  Boston,  1755.  N.  L. 

Mayhew,  Jonathan.  Seven  Sermons  .  .  .  1748.  London  Reprinted, 
1750.  N.  L. 

Morrill,  Isaac.  Faith  in  Divine  Providence,  the  great  support  of  God's 
people  in  perilous  times,  .  .  .  Lexington,  April  19,  1780.  Boston, 
1780.  M.  H.  S. 

Parsons,  Jonathan.  Wisdom  justified  of  her  Children.  Boston,  1742. 
N.  L. 

Potter,  Elam.  A  Second  Warning  to  America  .  .  .  1777.  Hartford. 
C.  H.  S. 

Potter,  Nathaniel.  A  Discourse  on  Jeremiah  8th,  20th.  .  .  .  Boston, 
1758.  M.  H.  S. 

Ross,  Robert.  A  Sermon  in  which  the  Union  of  the  Colonics  is  consid- 
ered and  recommended  .  .  .  November  Sixteenth,  1775.  New  York, 
1776.  M.  H.  S. 


Bibliography  199 


Rowland,  David  S.  Historical  Remarks  .  .  .  June  6,  1779.  Providence. 
J.  C.  B.  L. 

Stiles,  Ezra.  A  Discourse  on  Saving  Knowledge.  .  .  .  Newport,  1770. 
N.  L. 

Trumbull,  Benj.  A  Discourse,  Delivered  at  the  Anniversary  Meeting  Of 
the  Freemen  Of  the  Town  of  New  Haven,  April  12,  1773.  New 
Haven,  1773.  C.  H.  S. 

Wheelock,  Eleazar.  Liberty  of  Conscience  .  .  .  Nov.  30,  1775.  Hart- 
ford, 1775.  Y.  C.  L. 

Whitney,  Peter.  American  Independence  Vindicated  .  .  .  September  12, 
1776.  Boston,  1777.  A.  A.  S. 

Woodward,  Samuel.  The  Help  of  the  Lord,  in  signal  deliverances  and 
special  salvations,  to  be  acknowledged  and  remembered  .  .  .  Lex- 
ington, April  19,  1779.  Boston,  1779.  M.  H.  S. 

Pamphlets  Other  Than  Sermons 

Adams,  Zabdiel.  An  Answer  to  A  Pamphlet  lately  published,  intitled, 
"A  Treatise  on  Church  Government."  Boston,  1773.  J.  C.  B.  L. 

Aged  Layman  of  Connecticut.  A  Letter  To  the  Clergy  of  the  Colony  of 
Connecticut.  1760.  Y.  C.  L. 

Aged  Minister.  An  Answer  To  A  Letter  From  an  Aged  Layman,  to  the 
Clergy  of  the  Colony  of  Connecticut.  New  Haven.  Y.  C.  L. 

The  Answer  of  the  Elders  and  other  Messengers  of  the  Churches,  as- 
sembled at  Boston,  in  the  year  1662.  To  the  Questions  propounded  to 
them  by  order  of  the  honorable  General  Court.  N.  L. 

Apthorp,  East.  A  Reviezv  of  Dr.  Mayhew's  Remarks  on  the  Answer  to 
his  Observations  on  the  Charter  and  Conduct  of  the  Society  for  the 
Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts.  London,  1765.  N.  L. 

Backus,  Isaac.  A  Fish  caught  in  his  own  Net.  Boston,  1768.  J.  C.  B.  L. 

Backus,  Isaac.  A  Letter  to  a  Gentleman  in  the  Massachusetts  General 
Assembly,  Concerning  Taxes  to  support  Religious  Worship.  1771. 
J.  C.  B.  L. 

Backus,  Isaac.  Policy  as  well  as  Honesty,  forbids  the  use  of  Secular 
Force  in  Religious  Affairs.  Boston,  1779.  J.  C.  B.  L. 

Backus,  Isaac.  A  Seasonable  Plea  for  Liberty  of  Conscience,  Against 
some  late  Oppressive  Proceedings.  Boston,  1770.  J.  C.  B.  L. 

Bulkeley,  Gershom.  The  People's  Right  to  Election  or  Alteration  of 
Government  in  Connecticott.  Phila.,  1689.  Conn.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  I. 

Bulkeley,  Gershom.  IV ill  and  Doom,  or  The  Miseries  of  Connecticut 
by  and  under  an  Usurped  and  Arbitrary  Power,  1692.  Conn.  Hist. 
Soc.  Coll.,  III. 

Caner,  H.  A  Candid  Examination  of  Dr.  Mayhew's  Observations.  Bos- 
ton, 1763.  N.  L. 

Care,  Henry  and  Nelson,  Wm.  English  Liberties,  or  the  Free-born 
Subject's  Inheritance.  6th  ed.  corrected  and  improved.  Providence, 
R.  L,  1774.  C.  H.  S. 

Catholicus.  A  Letter  To  A  Clergyman,  in  the  Colony  of  Connecticut 
from  his  Friend.  New  Haven,  1757.  Y.  C.  L. 

Chaplin,  Ebenezer.  A  Treatise  on  Church-Government,  In  Three  Parts; 
Boston,  1773.  This  was  published  under  pseudonym,  "A  Neighbor." 
J.  C.  B.  L. 

Chaplin,  Ebenezer.  A  Second  Treatise  on  Church-Government,  .  .  . 
By  a  Neighbor.  Boston,  1773.   M.  H.   S. 

Chauncey,  Chas.  A  Letter  to  a  Friend.  Boston,  1767. 


200         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

Clap,  Thomas.  The  Answer  Of  The  Friend  in  the  West,  To  A  Letter 
From  A  Gentleman  in  the  East.  .  .  .  New  Haven,  1755.  Y.  C.  L. 

Clap,  Thomas.  A  Brief  History  and  Vindication  of  the  Doctrines  Re- 
ceived and  Established  in  the  Churches  of  New  England,  .  .  2nd.  ed., 
New  Haven,  1757.  N.  L.  (1st  ed.,  1755.) 

Cleaveland,  John.  An  Essay,  to  defend  some  of  the  most  important 
Principles  in  the  Protestant  Reformed  System  of  Christianity  .  .  . 
against  the  injurious  Aspersions  cast  on  the  same,  by  Jonathan  May- 
hew,  D.D.  .  .  .  Boston,  1763.    N.  L. 

A  Compendium  of  the  Minutes  of  the  Warren  Baptist  Association,  .  .  . 
1767  to  1825.  J.  C  B.  L. 

A  Confession  of  Faith  .  .  .  of  the  Churches  assembled  at  Boston  in 
New  England,  May  12,  1680.  Boston,  1772. 

Cooper,  Samuel.  The  Crisis.  June,  1754.  M.  H.  S. 

Cotton,  John.  The  Doctrine  of  the  Church.  2nd.  ed.,  London,  1643.  N.  L. 

Cotton,  John.  The  Way  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  New  England. 
London,  1645.  N.  L. 

Cotton,  John.  A  Narrative  of  the  Transactions  at  Middleborough.  Bos- 
ton, 1746.  M.  H.  S. 

Davenport,  John.  A  Discourse  about  Civil  Government  in  a  New  Plant- 
ation Whose  Design  is  Religion.  Cambridge,  1663.  Y.  C.  L. 

Davenport,  John.  The  Power  of  Congregational  Churches  Asserted  and 
Vindicated,  .  .  .  London,  1672.  Y.  C.  L. 

Devotion,  Ebenezer.  The  Examiner  Examined  .  .  .  In  Answer  to  a 
Letter,  Iniitled,  The  Claim  of  the  Colonies  to  an  Exemption  from 
Internal  Taxes  imposed  by  Authority  of  Parliament,  examined. 
New-London,  1766.  Y.  C.  L. 

Eells,  Edward.  Some  Serious  Remarks  upon  the  Rev'd.  Mr.  Jonathan 
Todd's  Faithful  Narrative.  .  .  .  New  Haven,  1759.  Y.  C.  L. 

Hart,  William.  A  Letter  to  a  Friend:  Wherein  some  free  Thoughts 
are  offered  on  the  Subject  of  The  Rev.  Mr.  Noyes's  Proposed  Ex- 
amination By  The  Corporation  of  Yale  College.  .  .  .  New  Haven, 
1757.  Y.  C.  L. 

Hart,  William.  Remarks  On  a  late  Pamphlet  Wrote  by  Mr.  Hobart, 
Entitled,  The  Principles  of  congregational  Churches.  New  Haven, 
1760.  Y.  C.  L. 

Hobart,  Noah.  An  Attempt  To  illustrate  and  confirm  The  ecclesiastical 
Constitution  Of  The  Consociated  Churches.  New  Haven,  1765. 
Y.  C.  L. 

Hobart,  Noah.  A  Congratulatory  Letter  From  A  Gentlemen  in  the  West, 
To  His  Friend  in  the  East ;  .  .  .  New  Haven,  1755.  Y.  C.  L. 

Hobart,  Noah.  The  Principles  of  Congregational  Churches,  Relating  to 
the  Constitution  and  Authority  of  Ecclesiastical  Councils,  .  .  .  New 
Haven,  1759.  Y.  C.  L. 

Homes,  William.  Proposals  Of  Some  Things  to  be  done  in  our  admin- 
istring  Ecclesiastical  Government.  .  .  .  Boston,  1732.  Y.  C.  L. 

Langdon,  Samuel.  A  Summary  of  Christian  Faith  and  Practice.  Bos- 
ton, 1768. 

A  Layman  and  Platformist.  A  Letter  To  A  Friend,  Occasioned  By  The 
unhappy  Controversy  At  Wallingford.  New  Haven,  1760.  Y.  C.  L. 

Mather,  Increase.  A  disquisition  Concerning  Ecclesiastical  Councils, 
Proving  that  not  only  Pastors,  But  Brethren  delegated  by  the 
Churches,  have  equally  a  Right  to  a  decisive  Vote  in  such  Assemblies. 
Boston,  1716.  "Congregational  Quarterly"  Reprint,  no.  2,  Boston, 
1870.  N.  L. 


Bibliography  201 


Mather,  Richard  and  Tompson,  William.  A  Modest  &  Brotherly 
Answer  to  Mr.  Charles  Herle  his  Book,  against  the  Independency  of 
Churches.  London,  1644.  N.  L. 

Mayhew,  Jonathan.  A  Defence  Of  the  Observations  on  the  Charter 
and  Conduct  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in 
Foreign  Parts.  .  .  .  Boston,  1763.  N.  L. 

Mayhew,  Jonathan.  Observations  on  the  Charter  and  Conduct  of  the 
Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts.  Re- 
printed, London,  1763.  N.  L. 

Mayhew,  Jonathan.  Remarks  on  an  Anomymous  Tract,  intitled  An 
Answer  to  Dr.  Mayhew 's  Observations.  .  .  .  Boston,  1764 ;  reprinted, 
London,  1765.  N.  L. 

A  Ministerial  Cathechise,  Suitable  to  be  Learned  by  all  Modern  Proven- 
cial  Governors,  Pensioners,  Placemen,  etc.  Boston,  1771. 

Observations  Upon  the  Congregational  Plan  of  Church  Government, 
.  .  .  by  the  Convention  of  the  Ministers  Of  the  Province  of  Massa- 
chusetts-Bay at  their  annual  Meeting  in  Boston,  May  26,  1773.  .  .  . 
Boston,  1773.    N.  L. 

Paine,  Samuel.  A  Short  View  of  the  Differences  Between  the  Churches 
of  Christ,  and  the  established  Churches  in  the  Colony  of  Connecticut. 
Newport.  1752.  Y.  C.  L. 

A  Paraphrase  on  a  Passage  in  A  Sermon  Preached  by  the  Most  Rever- 
end Dr.  Markham,  Archbishop  of  York.  On  the  21st  of  February, 
1777. 

The  People  the  Best  Governors:  Or  A  Plan  of  Government  founded  on 
the  just  Principles  of  Natural  Freedom.  1776.  Appendix  of  Chase, 
History  of  Dartmouth  College,  vol.  I. 

A  Platform  of  Church  Discipline.  Cambridge  Platform  of  1648.  Boston, 
1772. 

Remarks  upon  a  Discourse  Preached  December  15th,  1774  .  .  .  and 
afterwards  at  the  Boston  Lecture,  By  William  Gordon.  1775.  M.  H.  S. 

The  Result  of  a  Council  Of  the  Consociated  Churches  Of  the  County  of 
Windham,  Boston,  1747.  Y.  C.  L. 

Result  of  a  Synod  at  Cambridge,  in  New-England,  1646.  London,  1654. 
N.  L. 

The  Results  of  Three  Synods  Held  by  the  Elders  and  Messengers  of  the 
Churches  of  Massachusetts  Province.  Boston,  1725.  N.  L. 

Robbins,  Philemon.  A  Plain  Narrative  of  the  Proceedings  Of  the  Rev- 
erend Association  and  Consociation  Of  Neiv-Haven  County,  Against 
the  Reverend  Mr.  Robbins  of  Branford,  Since  the  year  1741.  .  .  . 
Boston,  1747.  Y.  C.  L. 

The  Sentiments  and  Plan  of  the  Warren  Association.  Germantown,  1769. 
J.  C.  B.  L. 

Smith,  Ebenezer.  A  Letter  to  a  Gentlemen  in  the  Massachusetts  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  Concerning  Taxes  to  support  Religious  Worship.  1771. 
N.  L. 

Some  Remarks  on  Mr.  President  Clap's  History  and  Vindication,  of  the 
Doctrines  of  the  New-England  Churches  &c.  N.  L. 

The  Testimony  and  Advice  of  an  Assembly  of  Pastors  of  Churches  in 
New-England.  At  a  Meeting  in  Boston  July  7,  1743.  Boston.  Y.  C.  L. 

Todd,  Jonathan.  A  Faithful  Narrative,  Of  the  Proceedings  of  the  First 
Society  and  Church  In  Wallingford,  in  their  Calling  and  Settling 
The  Rev.  Mr.  James  Dana.  .  .  .  New  Haven,  1759.  Y.  C.  L. 

Todd,  Jonathan.  A  Reply  To  the  Reverend  Mr.  Eell's  Serious  Remarks, 
upon  the  faithful  Narrative,  &c.  .  .  .  New  Haven,  1760.  Y.  C.  L. 


202         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

The  Transactions  of  The  Council,  Called  for  the  Ordination  of  Mr.  John 
Hubbard,  At  Meriden,  December  29,  1767.  New  Haven.  Y.  C.  L. 

Warren  Association  Minutes,  1769-1862.  3  vols.  Boston,  1769-1868. 

Whitaker,  Nathaniel.  A  Confutation  Of  Two  Tracts,  intitled  A  Vin- 
dication of  the  New-England  Churches;  and  The  Churches  Quarrel 
espoused;  Written  by  the  Reverend  John  Wise,  A.M.  Boston,  1774. 
N.  L. 

Williams,  Elisha.  A  seasonable  Plea  For  The  Liberty  of  Conscience, 
And  The  Right  of  private  Judgment  In  Matters  of  Religion,  With- 
out any  Controul  from  human  Authority.  Boston,  1744.  Y.  C.  L. 
(Signed  "Philalethes".  but  the  author  is  supposed  to  be  Williams.) 

Wise,  John.  The  Churches  Quarrel  Espoused.  Boston,  1772,  first  pub. 
1710. 

Wise,  John.  A  Vindication  of  the  Government  of  Nezv  England 
Churches.  (In  same  ed.  as  above;  first  pub.  1717.) 

Wolcott,  R.  A  Letter  to  the  Reverend  Mr.  Noah  Hobart,  Windsor,  Apr. 
25,  1760.  Boston,  1761.  N.  L. 

Collections,  Diaries,  etc. 

Adams,  John.  Works,  ed.  by  C.  F.  Adams.  10  vols.  Boston,  1856. 

Adams,  Samuel.  Writings,  ed.  by  H.  A.  Cushing.  4  vols.  N.  Y.  1904. 

The  American  Gazette,  Numbers  I  &  II.  2nd.  ed.,  London,  1768. 

Backus,  Isaac.  A  History  of  New  England,  with  Particular  Reference 
to  the  Denomination  of  Christians  Called  Baptists.  2nd.  ed.,  with 
notes  by  David  Weston.  3  vols.  Newton,  Mass.,  1871 ;  vol.  I.  of 
original  pub.  1777;  vol.  II,  1784.  Works.  2  vols.,  J.  C.  B.  L.,  includes 
various  sermons,  addresses,  etc.  collected  and  bound  together. 

Baldwin,  E.  C.  Branford  Annals,  1700-1800.  New  Haven  Colony  Hist. 
Soc.  Papers,  vol.  IV. 

Baldwin,  Simeon  E.  Extracts  from  the  Diary  of  Miss  Bethiah  Bald- 
win, 1770.  New  Haven  Colony;  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  vol.  IX. 

Belcher  Papers,  Pt.  II.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  6th  Ser.,  vol.  VII. 

Belknap,  Jeremy.  History  of  New  Hampshire.  2  vols.  Boston,  1791. 

Bentley,  Rev.  William  J.  Diary.  4  vols.  Salem,  1905-1914. 

Berdt,  Dennys  de.  Letters,  1757-1770,  ed.  by  Albert  Matthews.  Reprinted 
from  Mass.  Col.  Soc.  Pub.,  XIII,  Cambridge,  1911. 

Boston  Town  Records,  1770-1777. 

Bowdoin  and  Temple  Papers.  Pts.  I  &  II,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  6th 
Ser.,  IX,  7th  Ser.,  VI. 

Case,  Rev.  Wheeler.  Poems,  Occasioned  By  Several  Circumstances  and 
Occurrencies,  In  The  Present  great  Contest  of  America  For  Liberty. 
New  Haven.  1778.  C.  H.  S. 

Chamberlain,  Mellen  J.,  Ed.  A  Documentary  History  of  Chelsea.  2 
vols.  Boston,  1908. 

Classified  Digest  of  the  S.  P.  G.  Records,  1701-1892. 

Connecticut  Historical  Society  Collections,  vols.  1-16.  Hartford,  1860- 
1916. 

Connecticut,  Public  Records  of  the  Colony  of,  (1636-1776).  Compiled  by 
J.  H.  Trumbull  and  C.  J.  Hoadly.  15"  volumes.  Hartford,  1850-1890. 

Connecticut,  Acts  and  Lazes  of  His  Majesty's  Colony  of,  in  New  Eng- 
land. New  London,  ed.  of  1715  and  1769,  with  supplements  to  1779. 

Cooper,  Samuel,  DD.,  "Diary,  1775-1776",  Amer.  Hist.  Rev.,  VI.  301- 
411 ;  "Letters  to  Pownall,  1769-1777",  Amer.  Hist.  Rev.,  VIII.  301-30. 

Danvers  Historical  Collections,  VII. 


Bibliography  203 


Edwards,  Rev.  Morgan.  Materials  for  a  History  of  the  Baptists  in 
Rhode  Island.  Written  1771  and  incomplete.  R.  I.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll., 
VI,  301-70. 

Fitchburg,  Old  Records  of  the  Town  of,  Fitchburg,  1898. 

Force,  ±-eter,  Ed.  American  Archives,  IV  Ser.,  I  &  II.  Washington, 
1837. 

Franklin,  Benjamin.  Calendar  of  the  Papers,  I-VI,  in  the  Amer. 
Philos.  Soc,  ed.  by  I.  Mims  Hays.  Phila.,  1908. 

Franklin,  Benjamin.  Complete  Works,  ed.  by  John  Bigelow.  10  vols. 
1887-1888. 

Gibbes,  R.  W.,  Ed.  Documentary  History  of  the  American  Revolution. 
N.  Y.  1855. 

Gordon,  William.  The  History  of  the  Rise,  Progress,  and  Establishment 
of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States  of  America.  2  vols.  2nd. 
Amer.  ed.,  N.  Y.  1794.  Much  original  material. 

Green,  S.  A.  Groton  during  the  Revolution.  Groton,  1900.  Much  orig- 
inal material. 

Griffith,  William.  Historical  Notes  of  the  American  Colonies  and 
Revolution  from  1754  to  1775.  Burlington,  N.  J.,  1843. 

Ingersoll,  Jared.  "A  Selection  from  the  Correspondence  and  Miscel- 
laneous Papers",  ed.  by  F.  B.  Dexter.  New  Haven  Colony  Hist.  Soc. 
Papers,  vol.  IX. 

Mann,  Herman,  Ed.  Historical  Annals  of  Dedham.  Dedham,  1847. 

Massachusetts  Colonial  Society  Publications,  I,  III. 

Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Collections,  1st  S.,  VIII;  2nd  S.,  X; 
3rd  S.,  V;  4th  S.,  I,  IV,  Vf  5th  S.,  VII,  LXXIV. 

Massachusetts,  The  Journals  of  Each  Provincial  Congress  of,  in  1774 
and  1775,  and  of  the  Committee  of  Safety,  with  an  Appendix  con- 
taining the  proceedings  of  the  County  Conventions.  Boston,  1838. 
M.  S.  L. 

Massachusetts  Bay,  Journal  of  the  Convention  for  Framing  a  Consti- 
tution of  Government  for  the  State  of,  from  the  Commencement 
of  their  first  session,  September  1,  1779,  to  the  close  of  the  last 
session,  June  16,  1780.  Boston,  1832. 

Mather,  Cotton.  "Diary  1709-1724".  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  7th  S.,  VIII. 

New  Hampshire  Historical  Collections.  IV,  V,  IX. 

Nezv  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  VII. 

New  Hampshire  Provincial  and  State  Papers,  X. 

New  Hampshire  State  Papers,  VIII,  X. 

New  Hampshire  Town  Papers,  IX,  XI,  XII,  XIII. 

Niles,  H.,  Ed.  Principles  and  Acts  of  the  Revolution  in  America.  Balti- 
more, 1822. 

Parkman,  Rev.  Ebenezer.  Diary,  ed.  by  Harriette  M.  Forbes.  West- 
borough,  1899. 

Pascoe,  C.  F.  Two  Hundred  Years  of  the  S.  P.  G.  An  Historical  Ac- 
count, 1701-1900.  Based  on  a  digest  of  the  Society's  Records.  London, 
1901. 

Perry,  Wm.  Stevens.  Historical  Collections  relating  to  the  American 
Colonial  Church,  vol.  IV. 

Plymouth  Church  Records.  2  vols.  N.  Y.,  1920. 

Plymouth,  Records  of  the  Tozvn  of,  vol.  I.  Plymouth,  1889. 

Prince,  Thos.,  Jr.  The  Christian  History,  containinq  Accounts  of  the 
Revival  and  Propagation  of  Religion  in  Great-Britain  &  America. 
For  the  Year  1743,  Boston,  1744.  For  the  Year  1744,  Boston,  1745. 
M.  H.  S. 


204         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

Records  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  U.  S.  of  America,  1706-1788. 

Phila.,   1904.  Also  Minutes  of  the   Gen'l   Convention   of  Synod  of 

Phila.  &  N.  Y.  and  the  Consociated  Churches  of  Conn.,  1766-1775. 
Records  of  the  Town  of  Plymouth.  Vol.  I.  Plymouth,  1889. 
Sewall,  Samuel.  Letter-Book.  2  vols.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  6th  Ser., 

vols.  I,  II.  Boston,  1886. 
Smith,  Rev.  Thomas.  Journals  of  the  Rev.  Thomas  Smith  and  the  Rev. 

Samuel  Deans,  ed.  by  Wm.  Willis.  2nd.  ed.  of  Journal  of  Smith, 

Portland,  1849. 
Stiles,  Rev.  Ezra.  Extracts  from  the  Itineraries  and  Other  Miscellanies, 

1755-1794,  with  a  selection  from  his  correspondence,  ed.  by  F.  B. 

Dexter.  New  Haven,  1916. 
Trumbull,  Benjamin.  A   Complete  History  of  Connecticut  Civil  and 

Ecclesiastical  from  the  Emigration  of  its  first  Planters  .  .  .  to  the 

year  1764.  2  vols.  1st  ed.,  London,  1818. 
Turell,  Ebenezer.  The  Life  and  Character  of  the  Reverend  Benjamin 

Colman,  D.D.  Boston,  1749. 
Washington,  George.  Writings,  I-XII,  ed.  by  J.  Sparks.  Boston,  1837. 
Whitefield,  George.  Works,  I-IV.  London,  1771. 

BIOGRAPHIES    AND    MISCELLANEOUS    WRITINGS 

Adams,  James  Truslow.  The  Founding  of  New  England.  Boston,  1921. 

Adams,  James  Truslow.  Revolutionary  New  England,  1691-1776.  Bos- 
ton, 1923. 

Allen,  William.  An  Account  of  the  Separation  in  the  Church  and  Town 
of  Pittsfield.  Pittsfield,  1809.  M.  H.  S.  _ 

Allen,  William.  The  American  Biographical  Dictionary.  3rd  ed.,  Bos- 
ton, 1857. 

Allison,  W.  H.  Inventory  of  Unpublished  Material  for  American  Re- 
ligious History  in  Protestant  Church  Archives  and  other  Reposi- 
tories. Washington,  1910. 

Balch,  G.  W.  "Some  Account  of  Rev.  Benjamin  Balch".  Danvers  His- 
torical Collections,  VII. 

Baldwin,  Roger  S.  "A  Bit  of  College  History"  in  Mag.  Amer.  Hist., 
XXVIII.  281-83. 

Barber,  John  Warner,  Ed.  Connecticut  Historical  Collections,  Con- 
taining a  General  Collection  of  Interesting  Facts,  Traditions.  .  .  . 
2nd.  ed.,  New  Haven,  1836.  C.  S.  L. 

Barry,  John  Stetson.  The  History  of  Massachusetts.  3  vols.  Boston, 
1855. 

Bates,  A.  C.  "Fighting  the  Revolution  with  Printers'  Ink  in  Connecti- 
cut". New  Haven  Colony  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  IX. 

Belcher,  J.  George  Whitefield.  American  Tract  Soc,  1857. 

Belknap,  Jeremy.  American  Biography.  Boston,  1794-1798. 

Blake,  S.  L.  The  Separates  or  Strict  Congregationalists  of  New  Eng- 
land. Boston,  1902. 

Boylston,  E.  D.  Historical  Sketch  of  the  Hillsborough  County  Con- 
gresses, Held  at  Amherst,  N.  H.,  1774-1775.  Amherst,  1884. 

Bradford,  Alden.  Biographical  Notices  of  Distinguished  Men  of  New 
England.  Boston,  1842. 

Bradford,  Alden.  Memoirs  of  the  Life  and  Writings  of  Jonathan  May- 
hew.  Boston,  1838.  Much  original  material. 


Bibliography  205 


Bradford,  Alden.  History  of  Massachusetts,  .  .  .  from  the  year  1620  to 

1820.  Boston,  1835. 
Bradford,  Alden.  History  of  Massachusetts,  1764  to  1820.  3  vols.  Boston, 

1822-1829. 
Breed,  W.  P.  Presbyterians  and  the  Revolution.  Phila.,  1876. 
Briggs,  C.  A.  American  Presbyterian-ism.  N.  Y.,  1885. 
Bruce,  W.  C.  Benjamin  Franklin  Self -Revealed.  2  vols.  N.  Y.,  1917. 
Chase,  Ellen.   The  Beginnings   of   the  American  Revolution.  3   vols. 

N.  Y.,  1910. 
Chase,  Frederick.  A  History  of  Dartmouth  College  and  the  Town  of 

Hanover,  New  Hampshire.  2  vols.  Cambridge,  1891.     Much  original 

material. 
Clark,  J.   S.  A   Historical  Sketch  of  the  Congregational  Churches  in 

Massachusetts,  from  1620  to  1858.  Boston,  1858. 
Cobb,  S.  H.  The  Rise  of  Religious  Liberty  in  America.  N.  Y.,  1902. 
Cogswell,  Wm.,   Ed.  New  Hampshire  Repository.  2  vols.   Gilmanton, 

N.  H.,  1846. 
Connecticut,  Centennial  Papers  Published  by  Order  of  the  General  Con- 
ferences of  the  Congregational  Churches  of,  Hartford,  1877. 
Connecticut,  Contributions  to  the  Ecclesiastical  History  of,  ed.  by  Wm. 

Kingsley.  New  Haven,  1861. 
Connecticut  Historical  Society,  Collections,  vols.   1-16.  Hartford,   1860- 

1916. 
Connecticut,  List  of  Congregational  Ecclesiastic  Societies  Established  in, 

before  October  1818  with  their  Changes,  ed.  by  A.  C.  Bates.  Hart- 
ford, 1913. 
Crandall,  A.  W.  The  Religious  Sects  in  Rhode  Island  during  the  Revo- 
lutionary Period.  Master's  Thesis,  Univ.  of  Chicago,  1920. 
Crane,  John  C.  Peter  Whitney  and  his  History  of  Worcester  County. 

Worcester,  1889. 
Cross,  A.  L.  The  Anglican  Episcopate  and  the  American  Colonies.  N.  Y., 

1902. 
Cushing,  H.  A.  "The  People  the  Best  Governors".  Amer.  Hist.  Rev.,  I. 

284-87. 
Dexter,  F.  B.  Biographical  Sketches  of  the  Graduates  of  Yale  College, 

with  Annals  of  the  College  History.  First,  Second,  and  Third  Series. 

N.  Y.,  1885. 
Dexter,  F.  B.  "Thomas  Clap  and  His  Writings".  New  Haven  Colony 

Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  V. 
Dexter,  F.  B.  "Notes  on  some  of  the  New  Haven  Loyalists  including 

those  graduated  at  Yale".  New  Haven  Colony  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  IX. 
Dexter,  H.  M.  Congregationalism:   What  it  is;  Whence  it  is;  How  it 

works;  .  .  .  4th  ed.,  rev.  &  enl.,  Boston,  1876. 
Dexter,  H.  M.  The  Congregationalism  of  the  Last  Three  Hundred  Years, 

as  Seen  in  its  Literature.  N.  Y.,  1880. 
Fairfield  County  Historical  Society,  Reports  of.  Bridgeport,   1895. 
Fairfield  East  and  Fairfield  West,  The  One  Hundred  and  Fiftieth  Anni- 
versary of  the  Consociations.  Bridgeport,  Conn.,  1886. 
Fairfield  East   Association   and   Consociation,  Historical  Sketches  and 

Rules   of,  with   Statistical  Notices   of   the   Consociated   Churches. 

New  Haven,  1859. 
Fay,  Bernard.  L'Esprit  revolutionnaire  en  France  et  aux  Etats-Unis,  a 

la  fin  du  XVIII"  siecle.  Paris,  1925. 
Forbes,  Harriette  M.  New  England  Diaries,  1602-1800.  1923. 


206         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 


Garver,  Austin  S.  Peter  Whitney:  A  Discourse.  Worcester, 

Gillies,  John.  Memoirs  of  the  Life  and  Character  of  the  late  Rev. 

George  White  field,  A.M.  2nd  ed.,  Dublin,  1811. 
Gipson,  Lawrence  H.  Jared  Ingersoll:  a  Study  of  American  Loyalism 

in  Relation  to  British  Colonial  Government.  New  Haven,  1920. 
Greene,  M.  Louise.  The  Development  of  Religious  Liberty  in  Connecti- 
cut. Boston,  1905. 
Groton,  Proceedings  of  the  Centennial  Celebration  at,  1876. 
Guild,  R.  A.  Chaplain  Smith  and  the  Baptists.  Phila.,  1885. 
Guild,  R.  A.  Life,  Times  and  Correspondence  of  James  Manning,  and 

the  Early  History   of  Brown   University.  Boston,   1864.  Both  have 

many  documents. 
Hale,  E.  E.  The  Centennial  of  the  Constitution.  Boston,  1880. 
Headley,  J.  T.  The  Chaplains  and  Clergy  of  the  Revolution. 
Hodges,  A.  C.  "Yale  Graduates  in  Western  Massachusetts".  New  Haven 

Colony  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  IV. 
Holland,  J.  G.  History  of  Western  Massachusetts.  2  vols.  Springfield, 

1855. 
Hollister,  G.  H.  The  History  of  Connecticut.  2  vols.,  Hartford,  1857. 
Hovey,  Alvah.  Memoir  of  the  Life  and  Times  of  the  Rev.  Isaac  Backus, 

A.M.  Boston,  1859. 
Lamb,    Martha   J.   "Judge   Charles   Johnson    McCurdy,   1797-1891".   In 

Mag.  Amer.  Hist.,  XXVI,  32-40. 
Lawrence,  R.  F.  The  New  Hampshire  Churches.  Claremont,  1856. 
Lexington,   Proceedings   and   Addresses   Commemorative    of    the    Two 

Hundredth  Anniversary  of  the  Incorporation  of  the  Town  of,  1914. 
Loring,  J.  S.  The  Hundred  Boston  Orators,  1770-1852.  2nd  ed.,  Boston, 

1853. 
Love,  W.  Deloss,  Jr.  The  Fast  and  Thanksgiving  Days  of  New  England. 

Boston,  1895. 
M'Clure,  David  and  Parish,  Elijah.  Memoirs  of  the  Rev.  Eleazar 

Wheelock,  D.D.  .  .  .  to  which  are  added,  Copious  Extracts  from  Dr. 

Wheelock's  Correspondence.  Newburyport,  1811. 
McLaughlin,  A.  C.  "The  Social  Compact  and  Constitutional  Construc- 
tion". Amer.  Hist.  Rev.,  V,  467-91. 
Mathews,  L.  K.  The  Expansion  of  New  England.  Boston,  1909. 
Moore,  J.  and  Farmer,  J.,  Edd.  Collections,  Topographical,  Historical 

and  Biographical  Relating  Principally  to  New  Hampshire.  3  vols. 

Concord,  1822. 
Morison,   S.   E.  A   History  of  the  Constitution  of  Massachusetts  Re- 
printed from  the  Manual  for  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1917. 

Boston. 
Morison,  S.  E.  "Massachusetts  Constitutional  Conventions".  Mass.  Hist. 

Soc.  Proc,  L. 
Murdoch,  K.  B.  Increase  Mather.  Cambridge,  1925. 
New  England  Historical  and  Genealogical  Register. 
New  Haven   Colony   Historical  Society  Papers,  I-VIII. 
Palfrey,  J.  G.  History  of  New  England.  5  vols.  Boston,  1890. 
Parker,  E.  P.  "The  Congregational  Separates  of  the  Eighteenth  Century 

in  Connecticut".  New  Haven  Colony  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  VIII. 
Parsons,  F.  "Elisha  Williams :   Minister,  Soldier,  President  of  Yale". 

New  Haven  Colony  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  VII. 
Pierce,  Benj.  A  History  of  Harvard  University.  Cambridge,  1833. 
Plunkett,  Mrs.  H.  M.  "The  Fighting  Parson".  In  Pittsficld  Sun.  Oct. 

20  and  29,  1898.  M.  S.  L. 
Purcell,  R.  J.  Connecticut  in  Transition,  1755-1818.  Washington,  1918. 


Bibliography  207 


Quincy,  Josiah.  The  History  of  Harvard  University.  5  vols.,  Cambridge, 
1840. 

Reed,  S.  M.  Church  and  State  in  Massachusetts,  1691-1740.  Urbana,  Illi- 
nois, 1914. 

Reports  of  the  Fairfield  County  Historical  Society.  Bridgeport,  1895. 

Reynolds,  T.  B.,  Fishee,  S.  H.,  Wright,  H.  B.,  Edd.  Two  Centuries  of 
Christian  Activity  at  Yale.  N.  Y.,  1901. 

Rhode  Island  Imprints  .  .  .  between  1727  and  1800.  Providence,  1914. 

Rice,  John  L.  "The  New  Hampshire  Grants".  Mag.  Amer.  Hist.,  VIII, 
1-23. 

Riley,  I.  Woodbridge.  American  Philosophy,  The  Early  Schools.  N.  Y., 
1907. 

Sabine,  Lorenzo.  Biographical  Sketches  of  Loyalists  of  the  American 
Revolution,  with  an  Historical  Essay.  2  vols.  Boston,  1864. 

Sill,  E.  E.  "A  Forgotten  Connecticut  Patriot".  Pub.  Conn.  Soc.  Order  of 
the  Founders  and  Patriots  of  Amer.,  No.  4.  New  Haven,  1901. 

Sprague,  W.  B.  Annals  of  the  American  Pulpit.  8  vols.,  N.  Y.,  1866-1877. 

Stackpole,  E.  S.  History  of  New  Hampshire.  4  vols.  N.  Y. 

Stickney,  A.  F.  "John  and  Ebenezer  Cleaveland".  Mag.  Amer.  Hist., 
XXVIII,  391-92. 

Storrs,  R.  L.,  Ed.  Proceedings  at  the  Centennial  Celebration  of  the  In- 
corporation of  the  Town  of  Longmeadow.  1884. 

Swift,  Lindsay.  "The  Massachusetts  Election  Sermons".  Mass  Col.  Soc. 
Pub.,  I,  388-451. 

Thacher,  Rev.  Thos.  A  Biographical  Memoir  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  West. 
Boston,  1808.  M.  H.  S. 

Thayer,  C.  T.  An  Address  Delivered  in  the  First  Parish  Beverly.  Bos- 
ton, 1868. 

Tracy,  Joseph.  The  Great  Awakening.  Boston,  1842. 

Trumbull,  J.  H.  List  of  Books  Printed  in  Connecticut,  1709-1800.  Hart- 
ford, 1904. 

Trumbull,  J.  H.  "Sons  of  Liberty  in  1775".  In  New  Englander,  XXXV, 
pp.  299-313.  New  Haven,  1876. 

Tudor,  Wm.  The  Life  of  James  Otis.  Boston,  1823. 

Tyerman,  L.  Life  of  the  Rev.  George  Whitefield.  2  vols.  London,  1876. 

Tyler,  M.  C.  The  Literary  History  of  the  American  Revolution.  2  vols. 
N.  Y.  1897. 

Van  Tyne,  Claude.  The  Causes  of  the  War  of  Independence.  N.  Y„ 
1922. 

Van  Tyne,  Claude.  "Influence  of  the  Clergy  and  of  Religious  and  Sec-  , 
tarian    Forces    on    the    American    Revolution".    Amer.    Hist.    Rev., 
XIX,  44-64. 

Walker,  Williston.  The  Creeds  and  Platforms  of  Congregationalism. 
N.  Y.,  1893.  Many  documents. 

Walker,  Williston.  A  History  of  the  Congregational  Churches  in  the 
United  States.  Amer.  Church  Hist.  Series,  III.  N.  Y.,  1894. 

Winsor,  Justice.  Narrative  and  Critical  History.  8  vols.  Boston,  1881- 
1889.  (Especially  vol.  VIII.) 

town  and  county  histories 

Often  much  original  material  is  to  be  found  in  these  histories.  Many 

others  of  little  or  no  value  have  also  been  consulted. 

Allen,  F.  O.  The  History  of  Enfield,  Connecticut.  Compiled  from  all  the 
Public  Records  of  the  Town  Known  to  Exist,  Covering  from  Be- 
ginning to  1850.  2  vols.  Lancaster,  Pa.,  1900. 

Bailey,  S.  L.  Historical  Sketches  of  Andover.  Boston,  1880. 


208         The  New  England  Clergy  and  the  Revolution 

Barry,  Wm.  A  History  of  Framingham.  Boston,  1847. 

Bittinger,  J.  Q.  History  of  Haverhill,  N.  H.  Haverhill,  1898. 

Bourne,  E.  E.  History  of  Wells  and  Kennebunk.  Portland,  1875. 

Bouton,  Nathaniel.  History  of  Concord.  Concord,  1856. 

Butler,  Caleb.  History  of  the  Town  of  Groton.  Boston,  878. 

Carter,  N.  F.  and  Fowler,  T.  L.  History  of  Pembroke.  Concord,  1895. 

Chaffin,  Wm.  L.  History  of  the  Town  of  Easton.  Cambridge,  1886. 

Chandler,  C.  H.  The  History  of  New  Ipswich.  Fitchburg,  1914. 

Chase,  G.  W.  The  History  of  Haverhill.  Haverhill,  1861. 

Clarke,  G.  K.  History  of  Needham,  Mass.  Univ.  Press,  1912. 

Cole,  J.  R.  History  of  Washington  and  Kent  Counties,  Rhode  Island. 
N.  Y.,  1889. 

Corey,  D.  P.  History  of  Maiden,  Mass.  Maiden,  1899. 

Crowell,  R.  E.  History  of  the  Town  of  Essex.  Essex,  1868. 

Daggett,  John.  A  Sketch  of  the  History  of  Attleborough.  Boston,  1894. 

Dartmouth,  Old,  Historical  Sketches,  1903-1909.  no.  7. 

Davis,  C.  H.  S.  History  of  Wallingford,  Conn.  Meriden,  1870. 

Dwelley,  J.  and  Simmons,  J.  F.  History  of  the  Town  of  Hanover,  Mass. 
Hanover,  1910. 

Eaton,  Cyrus.  History  of  Thomaston,  Rockland  and  South  Thomaston, 
Maine.  2  vols.  Hallowell,  1865. 

Fitts,  J.  H.  History  of  Newfield,  N.  H.  Concord,  1912. 

Folsam,  Geo.  History  of  Saco  and  Biddeford.  Saco,  1830. 

Green,  F.  B.  Boothbay,  Southport  and  Boothbay  Harbor.  Portland,  1906. 

Hazen,  Henry.  History  of  Billerica.  Boston,  1883. 

Hingham,  History  of  the  Town  of.  3  vols.  Hingham,  1893. 

Hudson,  Chas.  History  of  the  Town  of  Lexington.  Revised  and  con- 
tinued to  1912  by  the  Lexington  Historical  Society.  2  vols.  Boston, 
1913. 

Huntington,  E.  B.  History  of  Stamford,  Conn.  Stamford,  1868. 

Hurd,  D.  H.,  Ed.  History  of  Middlesex  County,  Mass.  3  vols.  Phila,, 
1890. 

Hurd4  D.  H.,  Ed.  History  of  New  London  County.  Phila.,  1882. 

Jameson,  E.  O.  The  History  of  Medway,  Mass.,  1713  to  1886.  Provi- 
dence, 1886. 

Judd,  Sylvester.  History  of  Hadley.  Springfield,  1905. 

Kent,  J.  C.  Northborough  History.  Newton,  1921. 

Kidder,  Frederic.  History  of  New  Ipswich.  Boston,  1852. 

Lamb,  Martha.  "Lyme".  Harper's  Mag.,  Feb.  1876,  pp.  313-28. 

Larned,  Ellen  D.  History  of  Windham  County,  Conn.  2  vols.  Wor- 
cester, 1874,  1880. 

Lewis,  Alonzo  and  Newhall,  J.  R.  History  of  Lynn.  2  vols.  Lynn,  1890. 

Lyford,  J.  O.,  Ed.  History  of  Concord,  N.  H.  2  vols.  Concord,  N.  H., 
1903. 

Marvin,  A.  P.  History  of  the  Tozvn  of  Lancaster.  1879. 

McDuffee,  Franklin.  History  of  the  Town  of  Rochester,  N.  H.  2  vols. 
Manchester,  1892. 

Morrison,  L.  A.  History  of  Windham,  N.  H.  Boston,  1883. 

Palmer,  C.  J.  History  of  the  Town  of  Lanesboro. 

Parker,  C.  S.  Town  of  Arlington.  Arlington,  1907. 

Pierce,  F.  C.  History  of  Grafton.  Worcester,  1879. 

Read,  Benj.  History  of  Swansea.  Salem,  1892. 

Runnels,  M.  T.  History  of  Sanbornton.  2  vols.  Boston,  1882. 

Scales,  John.  History  of  Strafford  County,  N.  H.  Chicago,  1914. 

Shattuck,  Lemuel.  History  of  Concord.  Boston,  1835. 


Bibliography  209 


Smith,  Frank.  History  of  Dover.  Dover,  1897. 

Smith,  J.  E.  A.  History  of  Pittsfield,  Mass.,  from  the  year  1734  to  the 
year  1800.  Boston,  1869. 

Stark,  C.  R.  Groton,  Conn.,  1705-1905.  Stonington,  Conn.,  1922. 

Steiner,  B.  C.  History  of  the  Plantation  of  Menunkatuck  and  of  the 
Original  Town  of  Guilford,  Conn.  Baltimore,  1897. 

Stone,  E.  M.  History  of  Beverly.  Boston,  1843. 

Swayne,  L.  L.,  Ed.  The  Story  of  Concord,  Told  by  Concord  Writers. 
Boston,  1906. 

Tapley,  H.  S.  Chronicles  of  Danvers  (Old  Salem  Village),  Massachu- 
setts. Danvers,  1923. 

Teele,  A.  K.,  Ed.  History  of  Milton,  Mass.,  1640  to  1889.  Boston. 

Washburn,  Emory.  Historical  Sketches  of  the  Town  of  Leicester.  Bos- 
ton, 1860. 

Waters,  T.  F.  Ipswich  in  the  Massachusetts  Bay  Colony.  2  vols.  Ipswich, 
1917. 

Wells,  D.  W.  and  R.  F.  History  of  Hatfield.  Springfield,  1910. 

Wheeler,  G.  A.  and  H.  W.  History  of  Brunswick,  Topsham  and  Harp- 
swell,  Maine.  Boston,  1878. 

Wheeler,  R.  A.  History  of  the  Town  of  Stonington,  Conn.  New  Lon- 
•   don,  1900. 

Winsor,  Justin.  Memorial  History  of  Boston.  4  vols.  Boston,  1881. 

Winsor,  Justin.  History  of  the  Town  of  Duxbury.  Boston,  1849. 


INDEX 


Acworth,  N.  H.,  151 

Adams,  Amos,  107f. 

Adams,  Eliphalet,  41  note  31 

Adams,  James  Truslow,  viif.,  18 
note  27,  29  note  22,  104  note  68 

Adams,  Jedediah,  185 

Adams,  John,  10  note  16,  43,  90, 
91  note  23,  92  notes  26  and  28, 
136  note  3 

Adams,  Rev.  John,  131  note  36, 
156,  162,  183 

Adams,  Samuel,  43,  90,  93  f.,  104 
note  68,  110  note  14,  116f.,  119 
note  43,  169;  desire  of,  for  sup- 
port of  clergy,  117  and  notes  35 
and  36;  friendship  of,  for  Rev. 
Samuel  Cooper,  119f.  and  note 
48,  156f.  and  note  10 

Adams,  Zabdiel,  10  note  16,  126 
note  15,  136  note  3,  156  note  11, 
164 

Alden,  Noah,  145,  185 

Allen,  James,  35  note  12 

Allen,  Thomas,  9  note  12,  125  note 
11,  131  notes  36  and  38,  137, 
139ff.,  156  note  11;  and  consti- 
tution of  Massachusetts,  142ff . ; 
influence  of,  in  western  Massa- 
chusetts, 140ff. ;  159ff. ;  and  Tories, 
159ff. ;    in   Revolution,    163   note 

48,    164f.,   on   committees, 

144,  161,  185 

Answer  of  Elders  and  Messengers, 
of  1662,  25 

Apple  ton,  Nathaniel,  16  note  14,  23 
note  4,  35  note  12,  37  note  25, 
63  note  55,  96  note  40 

Apthorp,  Dr.  East,  91 

Arminians,  17f.,  64,  103  note  62 

Ashley,  Jonathan,  159 

Avery,  David,  126  note  15,  128  note 
25,  139,  165 ;  as  chaplain,  161, 163 

Avery,  Parke,  189 

Backus,  Isaac,  109,  122  note  3,  129 

note  27,  139 
Bacon,  Francis,  8,  10  note  16;  Ad- 
vancement of  Learning  by,  12 
Balch,  Benjamin,  163.  124  note  11 
Balch,  William,  69,  124  note  11 
Baldwin,  Ebenezer,  4,  108  note  10, 
129  note  28 ;  on  American  liberty, 
133  note  48;  in  Revolution,  124 
note   11,  125f.  and  note   15,    162 
note  35;  and  slavery,  128  note  25 
Baptists,  viiif.  and  note  6,  3  note  2, 
19  and  note  29,  27  and  note  15, 


36  note  19,  51,  55  note  23,  59 
note  42 ;  and  religious  liberty, 
108ff .,  139f .  and  notes ;  in  Revolu- 
tion, 122  notes  1  and  3 ;  see 
Backus  and  Hezekiah  Smith 

Barnard,  John,  15,  29  note  22,  30, 
34  note  10,  54f. ;  sermons  by, 
quoted,  1734,  34  note  10,  40f., 
175, 1738,  54f. 

Barnes,  David,  11  note  25 

Belcher,  Joseph,  23  note  6,  36  note 
21 

Belknap,  Jeremy,  96  note  39,  119 
note  42,  120,  126  note  15,  128 
note  25,  156  note  11 

Bellamy,  Joseph,  59  note  38,  63  note 
55 

Bennington,  battle  of,  163  note  48, 
165  note  61 

Berkshire  County,  140ff.,  145 

Bible,  as  source  of  political  theory, 
7,  12,  16  note  14,  22,  23  note  4, 
29  note  22,  33ff.,  34  note  9,  45,  65, 
80ff.,  119,  123,  127,  129,  168;  law 
of  nature  and,  15  and  note  13; 
see  Law 

Bill  of  Rights,  137,  140,  144f.,  150, 
172;  an  American,  112  note  18 

Billerica,  136,  137  note  4 

Bird,  Samuel,  63  note  55 

Boardman,  Rev.  Mr.,  of  Chatham, 
162 

Bollan,  William,  112  note  18 

Bolton,  Robert,  10  and  note  15 

Boston  clergy,  vii,  11,  22,  43,  44, 
57,  85,  90,  98,  123,  170;  see 
Clergy 

Boston  Gazette,  93,  115,  116  note 
31,  139  note  10 

Boston  Massacre,  112,  124  and  note 
10 

Boston  Port  Bill,  123,  124  note  11 

Bowdoin,  James,  146  note  33 

Brainerd,  David,  61  note  48 

Bridges,  Ebenezer,  106 

Bridgham,  Benjamin,  183 

Brown  University,  36  note  19,  111 

Bryant,  Lemuel,  10  note  16 

Buckminister,  Joseph,   139  note  10 

Bulkeley,  Ger shorn,  17  notes  21  and 
22,  24  notes  7  and  8,  37 

Bulkley,  John,  17  note  21,  22  note  3, 
34  note  10;  Election  Sermon  of, 
1713,  quoted,  38f. 

Bunker  Hill,  162f.  and  note  48, 
165  note  61 


[211] 


212 


Index 


Burlamaqui,  J.  J.,  8,  11 

Burnet,    Bishop  Gilbert,  8,   11,   39 

note  28 
Butler,  Bishop,  8,  10  and  note  16 
Byles,  Matthew,  132  note  42 

Calvinists,  17f.,  64 

Cambridge  Platform,  21,  25,  51,  55, 
74  note  32 

Caner,  H.,  83  note  4 

Care  and  Nelson's  English  Liber- 
ties or  the  Freeborn  Subjects' 
Inheritance,  10  note  14 

Case,  Wheeler,  166 

Champion,  Judah,  in  Revolution, 
102,  155  note  2,  162  note  35; 
sermons  of,  107,  124  note  10,  132 
note  45 

Chandler,  Dr.  Thomas,  91 

Chaplains,  see  Clergy 

Chaplin,  Ebenezer,  125,  145,  185 

Charters,  65,  lOOf . ;  colonial,  5,  70 
note  19,  84f.  and  note  9,  109  note 
12,  119,  141,  177,  as  com- 
pacts, 24,  96,  100,  104,  115  and 
note  29,  129  and  note  27,  177 

Chauncey,  Charles,  70,  176 ;  and 
Anglican  Episcopate,  91f.,  107; 
Election  Sermon  of,  1747,  43f., 
29  note  22,  176 ;  and  Great  Awak- 
ening, 61,  63  note  55;  influ- 
ence of,  vii,  9,  120;  and  reli- 
gious liberty,  139  and  notes  9  and 
10;  in  Revolution,  43,  90,  92f. 
and  note  30,  116  and  note  31,  120, 
123,  156  note  10,  185f. 

Chauncey,  Nathaniel,  63  note  55 

Checkley,  Samuel,  23  note  6,  53 
note  17 

Chesterfield,   N.  H.,   151 

Cicero,  7,  10f.,  23  note  4 

Clap,  President  Thomas,  71  and 
note  22,  171  note  1 

Clark,  Jonas,  133  note  48,  137ff., 
145;  on  committees,  etc.,  186; 
Election  Sermon  of,  1781,  146f., 
180f . ;  friend  of  Revolutionary 
leaders,  94f.,  114  note  20.  169; 
influence  of,  12,  94f.  and  note  36, 
124  note  10,  131,  145 ;  opposition 
of,  to  Massachusetts  constitution 
of  1778,  137ff. ;  and  Stamp  Act, 
95 

Cleaveland,  John,  17;  activity  of, 
in  Revolution,  154ff.  and  note  1, 
178f. ;  as  chaplain.  162  note  35; 
expelled  from  Yale,  61  note  48, 
ll4:  and  newspaper  press.  114f., 
129ff.  and  notes  27  and  30;  and 
Tories,  157f.,  178f. 


Clergy,    in    American    Revolution, 
viif.,    89,    105,    154ff.,    162,    171, 

as  chaplains,  161f.,  164  note 

54,    on    committees,    135ff., 

161,  Appendix  B,  as  his- 
torians, 165L,  home  manu- 
facture    encouraged     by,     100f., 

154f.  and  notes  1  and  2,  as 

loyalists,    129   note  26,    132,    159 

and  notes  22  and  23,  and 

newspaper  press,  99ff.,  Ill  and 
note  18,  114f.,  116  note  21,  124 
note  10,  128  note  25,  133,  156ff. 

and    notes,    as    recruiting 

agents,    125ff.,     162ff.,    as. 

leaders  of  revolt  in  western 
Massachusetts  and  New  Hamp- 
shire, see  names  of  states,  

sacrifices     of,     165,     and 

Solemn  League  and  Covenant, 
155f.,  and  state  constitu- 
tions, 136ff.,  172,  185ff., and 

Stamp  Act,  89ff.,  see  Stamp  Act, 

and  Tories,    157ff. ;    choice 

and  dismissal  of,  20f.,  55  and 
note  23,  71f.,  82;  Baptist,  122 
note  3,  139  and  notes,  see  Bap- 
tists ;  Congregational,  viii,  84,  91, 
139,  see  Congregationalists ;  of 
Connecticut,  41,  59ff.,  72ff.,  85, 
98ff.,  108  note  10;  criticism  of,  3, 
56,  58,  68  note  13 ;  71,  98,  113, 115 
note  29,  116  note  31,  122,  130  note 
30,  158  note  19;  duties  of,  12,  33, 
171,  see  Rulers ;  Episcopalian,  91, 
129  note  26;  in  French  and  In- 
dian War,  86ff. ;  in  Great  Awak- 
ening, 58ff.,  see  New  Lights,  also 
Old  Lights,  also  Separates;  in- 
fluence of,  viif.,  3,  92  note  28, 
93  note  31,  94.  96  note  40,  98, 
100  note  51,  117  and  note  36,  122, 
124  note  11,  134f..  145,  153,  160f., 
172;  itinerant,  58ff.,  61  notes;  of 
Massachusetts,  84.,  95f.,  98,  108 
note  10,  116,  chapter  X,  see 
Massachusetts;  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, 127,  134f.,  140.  148ff..  153, 
Appendix  B ;  as  political  theor- 
ists, for  summary  of,  see  chapter 
XII;  political  activity  of,  6,  108 
note  10,  113  notes  21  and  22,  114, 
116  note  31,  122  and  note  1,  123. 
124  note  11,  chapters  VII— X; 
position  of,  in  New  England, 
3ff. ;  Presbyterian,  91,  163  note 
48,  see  Presbyterians  ;  reading  of, 
7ft.,  see  Bible;  and  religious  lib- 
erty,  see   Liberty;   taxation    for 


Index 


213 


support  of,  55  note  23,  59  note 
42,  62  note  53,  75f.,  78f.,  80  note 
47,  82  and  note  2,  108ff.,  139f., 
145  note  28,  147 

Cleverly,  Joseph,  10  note  16 

Cogswell,  James,  87  note  16 

Cole,  Nathan,  78f. 

Collins,  Daniel,  132,  159,  161 

Colman,  Benjamin,  8  note  8,  53 
note  17,  63  note  55 

Compact,  viii,  13f.,  20  and  note 
29,  24,  39,  47,  82,  96,  127,  129, 
177,  180f.,  see  Covenant ;  charters 
as,  see  Charters ;  between  Gen- 
eral Court  and  people,  34  note 
10;  between  prince  and  subjects, 
34  note  10,  43  note  35;  between 
rulers  and  people,  39f.,  43  note 
35 ;  see  Covenant ;  government 
founded  on,  24ff.,  30ff.  and  notes, 
53,  67,  96f.,  106,  115,  136f.,  140 
note  11,  143f.,  147,  172,  180,  see 
Government ;     social,     25,    27ff., 

30ff.  and  notes,  53,  147,  180, 

defined  by  John  Wise,  28ff . ;  see 
also  Constitution,  Covenant,  and 
Government 

Concord,  battle  of,  163  note  46,  165 
note  61 

Confession  of  Faith,  The,  1680,  51 

Congregationalists,  viiif.,  ix  note, 
3  note  2,  19,  22,  50f.,  54,  59  note 
42,  60,  74  note  32,  108,  110  and 
note  14,  120f.,  122  note  1,  130, 
see  Clergy 

Congress,  American,  179 ;  Conti- 
nental, 123,  131,  133,  135f.,  150; 
Provincial,  of  Massachusetts, 
123,   163 ;  Fourth  Provincial,  of 

New  Hampshire,  148, clergy, 

members  of,  Appendix  B. 

Conklin,  Benjamin,  186 

Connecticut,  ix  note,  3  note  1,  5, 
11,  27  note  15,  32,  37,  41,  49,  52, 
55,  58f.,  62f.,  70  note  19,  72,  75, 
78,  80,  86  note  12,  89  note  17,  98, 
124f.  and  note  11,  134f.,  147, 
148,  161f.,  165;  charter  of,  85; 
ecclesiastical  laws  of,  55,  59f . ; 
religious  intolerance  in,  5  Iff., 
59ff.,  63f. ;  and  Stamp  Act,  98ff., 
Gazette,  99 

Consideration  on  the  Measures 
Carrying  on  with  Respect  to  the 
British  Colonies  in  North 
America,  9 

Consociation,  55,  59,  72f.,  105  note 

1 
Constitution,    viii,    35    and    notes, 


37,  39  note  38,  40ff.  and  note  31, 
43,  46,  67,  85,  89,  119,  127,  129, 
138,  142f.,  174ff.;  alteration  of, 
35,  40,  119,  147,  18UL;  binding, 
18,  68,  see  Law ;  divine,  or  of 
God,  7,  14  and  note  8,  15ff.,  19, 
22,  35,  71  note  24,  107  note  7, 
108  note  10, 127, 168 ;  ecclesiastic- 
al, in  Connecticut,  55f.,  60,  65, 
69,  72ff.,  76f.,  79;  English  or 
British,  67,  78  note  42,  82,  85 
note  10,  88ff.,  90,  95,  97,  98  note 
47,  100,  102,  104  note  68,  106, 
118,  139  note  9,  157,  176ff.;  fixed, 
121,  127;  fundamental,  37,  80, 
82,  143,  see  Law;  mixed  or  bal- 
anced, 40,  42f .,  see  Government ; 
national,  136  note  3 ;  state,  Chap- 
ter X,  Appendix  B ;  written, 
viii,  114,  121,  134,  172;  see  also 
Clergy  and  Rights 

Convention,  constitutional,  121, 
126ff.,  134,  136f.,  139,  144f.,  150, 

152f.,     172,    Appendix    B,    

clergy  as  delegates  to,  145f . ; 
county,  125  and  note  13 ;  Wor- 
cester, 125  and  note  13 

Cooke,  Samuel,  of  Arlington,  Elec- 
tion Sermon  of,  1770,  11,  113f., 
128  note  25 ;  friend  of  Revolu- 
tionary leaders,  96  note  39,  114 
note  26 ;  opposed  to  slavery,  128 
note  25 

Cooke,  Samuel,  of  Stratfield,  63 
note  55 

Cooper,  Samuel,  9  notes  9,  12  and 
14,  85  and  note  10,  137;  friend 
of  Revolutionary  leaders,  90,  94 

note  36,  of  Samuel  Adams, 

156  and  note  10,  of  Ben- 
jamin Franklin,  119f.  and  notes 
47  and  48,  131  note  38,  137  note 
6,  156f. ;  Election  Sermon  of, 
1780,  146f .  and  note  35 ;  influence 
of,  on  Hancock,   156f.  and  note 

10,   in    Revolution,   vii,    85 

note  10,  90,  93f.  and  notes,  112 
notes  18  and  19,  116  and  note  31, 
156f.  and  note  10 

Cooper,  William,  63  note  55 

Cotton,  John,  25,  50  note  9,  51  note 
10,  53  note  17,  78  note  43 

Cotton,  John,  of  Newton,  Mass., 
68  note  13,  78  note  43 

Covenant,  church,  13f.  and  note  2, 

19ff.  and  note  29,  24f.  and  note 

13,  54,  60,  62,  82,  173 ;  civil,  25ff., 

28    note    20,    see    Compact    and 

Government;    between    God    and 


214 


Index 


Christ,  13f.  and  note  4,  16  note 
15;  between  God  and  man,  13 
note  2,  182;  between  magistrate 
and  people,  27  note  15,  34  note 
10;  between  minister  and  people, 
20  and  note  31,  82,  173;  be- 
tween prince  and  people,  29  note 
20,  34  note  10,  182;  ot  grace,  13; 
of  works,  13 ;  sacred  and  bind- 
ing, 13  note  2,  19f.,  78  note  43, 
82,  110,  138,  180,  182;  town,  24, 
174;  Worcester,  160  and  note  28 

Cummings,  Henry,  96  note  39, 
136f.,  145,  186 

Cushmg,  Thomas,  110  note  14, 
119  note  43 

Cutler,  Timothy,  13,  16  note  14,  41 
note  31 

Daggett,  Naphtali,  99 

Dana,  James,  8,  72,  128  note  24 

Dana,  Samuel,  132  note  43,  159  note 

22 
Dartmouth    College,    11    note    24, 

147 ff.,    179;    part    of,    in    revolt 

of  New  Hampshire  Grants,  149ff. 
Davenport,  James,  58 
Davenport,    John,    15,    22    note    3, 

23 ff.,  50  note  7 ;  Election  Sermon 

of,  1669,  quoted,  25f. 
Davies,  Samuel,  88  note  17,  112 
Davis,  Nathan,  186 
Declaration  of  Rights,  138 
Declaratory  Act,  106 
deBerdt,  Dennys,  4  note  5,  86,  88 

note  17,  112  note  18 
Democracy,  in  church  and  state.  24 

note  7,  29,  50f.,  79,  125,  133,  139ff. 
Devotion,   Ebenezer,    102  and  note 

60,  103  note  66,  177,  189 
Dickinson,  Jonathan,  53  note  17 
Dickinson.  Moses,  69  and  note  15, 

72  note  27 
Dorr,  Edward,  99  note  48 
Dunbar,  Asa,  132  note  43,  159  note 

22 
Dwight,  Timothy,  130 

Eaton,  Samuel,  126,  158 
Edwards,  Jonathan,  56,  59  note  38 
Edwards,  Jonathan,  Jr.,  128  note  25 
Eells,  Edward,  72  and  note  27 
Eells,   Nathaniel,   63   note   55,    163 

note  46 
Eells,  Samuel,  164 
Eliot,  Andrew,  111,  120;  corre- 
spondence of,  with  Thos.  Hollis 
and  influence  of,  in  Revolution, 
9  note  14.  90.  108.  HOfT.  and  notes 
14  and  18 ;  Election  Sermon  of, 
1765,  90  and  note  20 ;  reading  of, 


9  note  14,  11,  169;  and  slavery, 

128  note  25 ;  and  Stamp  Act,  90 
Eliot,  Jared,  10,  24  note  6,  30,  48, 

64  note  58,  176;  Election  Sermon 
of,  1738,  42f. 

Ely,  David,  164  note  54 

Emerson,  Joseph,  63  note  55,  96ff. 

Emerson,  Nathaniel,  131  note  36 

Emerson,  William,  126  note  15, 
164f. 

Emery,  Jacob,  183 

Emmons,  Nathaniel,  128  note  25 

Episcopalians,  ix  and  note  5,  20 
note  33,  45,  55  note  23,  59  note 
42,  70,  122  note  3,  129  note  28, 
132,  159  note  23;  see  also  Clergy 
and  Episcopate 

Episcopate,  Anglican,  fear  of,  70, 
90ff.  and  notes  23  and  24,  97,  105 
note  1,  107,  109f.,  170 

Equality,  32 ;  economic,  128  and 
note  24;  political.  48f.,  138,  144, 
147 ;  natural,  28f .  and  note  20, 
47ff.,  53,  66,  68  note  13,  96,  105, 
127f.,  144,  147.  176,  180;  see 
Liberty  and  Rights 

Essex  Gazette,  114,  130 

Evans    Israel,  12 

Excellencies  of  a  Free  State,  9,  11 

Fairfield,  county  of,  103;  East,  as- 
sociation of,  63,  county  of, 

63 ;  West,  association  of,  60  note 
47 

"Farmer",  The,  9,  106 

Farrar,  Stephen,  163,  183 

Fish,  Elisha.  96  note  40,  125,  127, 

129  note  27,  182,  186 
Fish.  Joseph,  69 

Fitch,   Governor,    103  and  note  62 

Fletcher,  Elijah    183 

Foster,  Abiel,  183 

Foster,  Dan,  11.  124  note  11,  125 

127,  129  note  27 
Foster,  Isaac,  63  note  55 
Foxcroft,  Thomas,  53  note  17,  63 

note  53,  65  note  2 
Franklin,  Benjamin.   119  note  43; 

friend  of  Samuel  Cooper,  9  note 

14,  93.   119f.   and   notes   47  and 

48,   147  note  35,  156f.  and  note 

10, of  Jared  Eliot,  10,  42 

French,  Jonathan,  163.  186 
French  and  Indian  War.  relation  to 

political  theory  of,   69  note   17, 

84.  86ff. 
Frink,    Thomas,    34    note    10,    43 

note  3"\  83  and  note  5 
Frothingham,  Ebenezer,  63  note  55, 

79 


Index 


215 


Gage,  Governor,  122  note  3,  123, 
157f.  and  note  16 

Gale,  Benjamin,  64  note  58 

Gay,  Ebenezer,  63  note  55,  132 
note  41 

Gee,  Joshua,  63  note  55 

God,  the  law-giver,  14  and  note  7, 
100,  174;  unlimited  authority  of, 
17f.,  18  note  27 ;  limited  by  law, 
17f.,  18  note  27;  see  also  Con- 
stitution, Covenant,  Government, 
Law 

Goddard,  Edward,   183 

Gold,  Hezekiah,  63  note  55 

Goodrich,  Elizur,  102,  125  note  11, 
171  note  1,  189 

Gordon,  William,  91  note  24,  99 
note  48,  124  note  10,  137;  in 
Revolution,  124  note  9,  130  note 
30,  156  note  11;  opposition  of, 
to  Massachusetts  constitution  of 
1778,  137 

Government,  balanced,  20  note  7, 
40,  42f.,  50,  83,  89,  114,  175,  see 
Constitution;  church,  19ff.,  50ff., 
72f.,  chapters  V  and  VI,  see  also 
Taxation ;  civil,  see  especially 
chapters  III,  IV,  X;  colonial, 
42,  83f.,  126,  see  Independence, 
Charters,  and  Constitution  ;  God's, 
chapter  II,  see  also  God,  Con- 
stitution, Covenant,  and  Law ; 
of  Great  Britain,  24  note  7,  42, 
83f.,  86f.,  87  note  17,  126,  see 
Constitution ;  limitations  upon, 
viii,  19,  23,  24  note  8,  26,  38, 
72f.,  102,  103  note  66,  138,  168f., 
180,  see  also  Compact,  Law, 
Rights,  and  Rulers;  origin  of, 
5f.,  22  and  note  3,  27ff.,  40,  43, 

66,  in  compact,  20  note  29, 

24ff.,  39  note  28,  40,  43,  47,  66 f., 
90  note  20,  96f.,  106,  115,  136f., 
140  note  11,  143f.,  172,  180f.,  see 

Compact    and     Covenant,     

divine,  22ff.  and  note  3,  32ff.,  34 
notes  9  and  10,  37ff.,  see  Law 
and  Political  Theory ;  resting  on 
consent,  23,  25ff.,  34  note  10,  43 
note  35,  45,  90  note  20,  129,  142f., 
147,  170,  177,  181,  see  Compact 
and  Covenant;  purpose  of,  5, 
22ff.  and  notes  4  a.nd  6,  28f.  and 
note  22,  35,  37f.  and  note  25,  40, 
47,  66,  106  note  2,  112,  115,  175, 
177,  181,  see  Rights;  source  of 
theories  of,  6ff. 


Grafton,    county    of,    147f.,    150; 

presbytery  of,  ix  note 
Graham,  John,  59  note  38,  63  note 

55 
Great  Awakening,  47,  56ff.,  64,  70, 

80 
Grey,  Harrison,  92  note  28 
Grosvenor,  David,  163 

Hall,  Aaron,  183 

Hall,   Samuel,   15,   42  note  33,  60 

note  47,  63  note  55 
Hampshire  County,  revolt  in,  142ff. 
Hancock,  John,  90,  169 ;  influenced 

by  Jonas  Clark,  94  note  36,  

by  Samuel  Cooper,  156  and  note 

10, by  Samuel  West,  96  note 

39,  145  note  30 
Hancock,  Rev.  John,  23  note  6,  35 ; 

Election  Sermon  of,  1732,  39f. 
Hanover,  N.  H.,  148ff.,  166 
Hanoverians,  25,  83f.,  88,  112,  119 

note  43 
Harrington,  James,  8,   lOf. 
Harrington,  Timothy,  132  note  43, 

159  note  22 
Hart,  Levi,  125  note  12,   128  note 

25,  129  note  27 
Hart,  William,  73  and  notes  27  and 

29 
Hartford,  60,   103 ;  association  of, 

60 ;   consociation    of,    72 ;    Cour- 

ant,  165 
Harvard  College,  3,  11  note  24,  61 

64  note  56,  111,  116 
Haven,  Jason,  11,  91  note  24,  106, 

186 
Haven,  Samuel,  34  note  10,  83  note 

5,  164 
Hemmenway,  Moses,   125  note  11, 

186 
Henry,  Matthew,  8  and  note  9,  10 
Henry,  Patrick,  89 
Hewins,  Increase,  186 
Hide,  Jedediah,  63  note  55 
Hill,   Abraham,    132   note   43,    159 

and  note  23 
Hitchcock,    Gad,    122   note   3,    129 

note  27,  145,  181,  186 
Hoadly,    Benjamin,    8.    10,    12,    29 

note  22.  40  note  30,  54,  74  note 

30,  80,  95 
Hobart,   Noah,   11,   72f.  and  notes 

27  and  28 
Hollis,    Thomas,   books,    etc.,    sent 

by,     to    American     colleges,     11 

note  24,  44;   friend  of  Mayhew, 


216 


Index 


44,  90  note  21,  92  note  26;  of 
Eliot,  108,  HOf.  notes  11  and  18; 
influence  of,  in  Revolution,  111 
note  18 

Holyoke,  Edward,  49  note  6 

Homes,  William,  53 

Hooker,  Thomas,  sermon  of,  1638, 
26f. 

Hooper,  William,  184 

Hopkins,  Daniel,  187 

Hopkins,  Samuel,  128  note  25,  154 
note  1 

Horace,  7,  11 

Hovey,  Daniel,  76 

Hovey,  John,  63  note  55 

Howard,  Samuel,  119  note  42 

Hubbard,  Col.  John,  64  note  58,  98 
note  47 

Humphreys,  Daniel,  63  note  55 

Hunn,  Nathaniel,  63  note  55,  68f., 
85f.,  86  note  12 

Hutchinson,  Thomas,  8,  llf.,  120 
note  48;  and  Stamp  Act,  92  note 
26,  98  note  46;  opinion  of,  on 
influence  of  sermons,  113f.  and 
note  22;  attitude  of  ministers 
toward,  as  governor,   114,   116f. 

Hutchinson's  History  of  Massa- 
chusetts, 8,  12,  116 

Independence,  of  colonies,  164f., 
attitude  of  clergy  toward,  90,  92 
note  26,  100f.,  112  note  18,  116, 
130ff.  and  notes,  178f.,  180f. 

Independent  Chronicle,  137 

Independent  Ledger,  93 

Interest  of  Great  Britain  Consid- 
ered with  Regard  to  Her  Col- 
onies, The,  9 

Johnson,  Stephen,  articles  by,  9 
note  11,  99ff.  and  notes,  130;  as 
New  Light,  63  note  55;  and 
Stamp  Act,  64  note  58,  99ff.  and 
notes;  Fast  Day  sermon  of,  1765, 
101  f.  and  note  54;  Election  Ser- 
mon of,  1770,  113,  128;  as  chap- 
lain, 162  note  35 

Langdon,  Samuel,  45 f.,  91  note  24, 
131  note  39,  156  note  10,  184 

Lathrop,  John,  108  note  10,  112f. 
and  note  20,  129  note  27;  Artil- 
lery Sermon  of,  1775,  181 ;  and 
Boston  Massacre,  112f. ;  on  home 
manufacture,  154  note  1 

Law,  13,  17ff.,  27f.,  32,  36f.,  42,  45, 


47,  65,  74,  86,  89,  118,  169,  176f. ; 
binding  character  of,  viii,  15, 
19f.,  26,  36f.  and  note  48,  45, 
102,  see  Constitution  and  Gov- 
ernment; of  Christ,  14ff.,  57,  69, 
see  Liberty;  divine  or  of  God, 
12ff.  and  note  7,  17f.,  22  and  note 
3,  26,  29ff.  and  note  22,  33ff.  and 
note  10,  38f.,  42  note  33,  53,  57, 
66,  76  f.,  79,  107,  118,  168,  170, 
172,  177,  see  God,  also  Govern- 
ment ;  fixed,  fundamental,  14,  17, 
35ff.,  39f.  and  note  28,  47,  57, 
80,  90,  168,  170,  174,  see  Consti- 
tution ;  God  bound  by,  17  and 
note  21,  18f.  and  note  27 ;  im- 
mutable, 14  and  note  6,  107;  in- 
violable, 14,  17,  27,  39;  of 
nature,  see  Nature,  also  Rights ; 
unconstitutional  or  contrary  to 
law  of  God,  not  binding,  viii, 
19,  37f.,  57,  67f.,  79,  101,  168ff., 

null  and  void,  37,  55,  65,  72, 

83,  101,  127,  168f.,  179,  181;  of 
the  Old  Testament,  14fL,  16  note 
14;  ecclesiastical,  of  1709,  1717, 
1742,    and    1743    in    Connecticut, 

55,    59f.,   of    1727-'29   and 

1752   in   Massachusetts,   55   note 

23,  62  note  53,  of  1714  in 

New  Hampshire,  55  note  23 

Leavenworth,  Mark,  189 

Lee,  Arthur,  119  note  43 

Legalism,  of  Puritan  theology, 
13ff.,  36ff. ;  of  church  govern- 
ment, 19ff. :  see  Law 

Leonard,  Abiel,  161 

Leonard,  Daniel,  171  f. 

Levellism,  33,  38,  41,  49,  128 

Lewis,  Isaac,  128  note  25 

Lexington,  battle  of,  124,  126  and 
note  15,  130,  133  note  48,  162, 
178 

Liberty,  24  note  6,  26,  32f.,  35  note 
18,  37ff.,  43f.,  46f.,  50,  52f.,  60 
note  47,  68,  71  ff.,  77 S.,  80  note 
47,  85f.,  87  notes  16  and  17,  88, 
97f.  and  note  47,  119,  144; 
American,  71,  108,  110,  128,  133 
and  note  48;  of  Christians,  7,  16, 
20  note  33,  33,  36,  43  note  36,  50f., 
54f.,  73  note  28,  78;  civil,  22f., 
38,  40,  42,  44f.,  47ff.,  68 f.,  83, 
89,  91,  97,  119  and  note  42,  128, 
130,  133,  144,  170,  172,  174f.,  176, 
177f.,  181;  natural,  28,  40,  42, 
50,  53f.,  66ff.,  80  note  47,  96f., 


Index 


217 


176,  181;  of  New  England,  44, 
85  f.,  89,  108,  110;  religious,  22, 
44,  47,  50ff.,  54,  58,  65,  67,  69 f., 
72f.,  77f.,  80  note  47,  87  note  16, 
89,  91,  107ff.,  127,  139f.,  142,  144, 

170,  172,  181,  struggle  for, 

in  Connecticut,  55ff.,  chapter  VI, 

in  Massachusetts,  50ff.,  69ff., 

139ff.;  see  also  Equality,  Rights 

Life,  liberty,  and  property,  24  note 
6,  38f.,  43,  46,  77,  87,  98  note 
47,  172,  see  Liberty,  Property, 
and  Rights 

Lincoln,  General,  164,  172 

Litchfield,  county  of,  63 

Little,  Woodbridge,  160 

Locke,  John,  7f.,  lOf.  and  notes 
16  and  24,  23f.  and  note  6,  29ff. 
and  notes  22,  27,  and  29,  42,  44, 

60,  65ff.,  80,  90,  97,  102,  106,  109, 
129,  139,  169,  176 

Lockwood,  James,  63  note  55,  83 

notes    4  and  5,   85    note    11,   87 

note  17 
London  Political  Register,  93f. 
Lowell,  John,  86 
Loyalists,  see  Clergy  and  Tories 
Luther,  8,  68,  181 
Lyman,    Joseph,    influence    of,    in 

Revolution,  124f.  notes  9  and  11; 

as    writer    for    newspapers,    156 

note     11,     activity     of,     against 

Tories,  159f. 
Lyme,  63  note  55,  99  and  note  50, 

103,  147;  Resolves,  177f. 
Lyon,  James,  187 

Maccarty,  Thaddeus,  63  note  55, 
125  note  13 

Magistrates,  choice  of,  26f.,  34f. 
and  note  10,  84,  90  note  20,  106, 
114,  119  note  43,  142,  149f.; 
duties  of,  5,  45  note  44;  limited 

by  God,  26f.,  38f.,   67,  by 

law,  26f.,   73f.,  by  people, 

26 f. ;  powers  of,  51  note  11,  54; 
see  Rulers 

Manning,  James,  109 

Manufacture,  home,  encouraged  by 
clergy,  100f.,  I54f.  and  notes  1 
and  2 

Martin,  John,  163  note  48 

Massachusetts,  ix   note,  5,  32,  55, 

61,  63,  75,  78,  85.  106,  108f.,  127, 
134f.,  139f.,  Appendix  B ;  charter 
of,  84,  90,  115,  141;  constitution 


of  1778,  136f., of  1780,  139, 

145f. ;  constitutional  convention 
of  1779-80,  137,  139,  144ff.,  Ap- 
pendix B ;  revolt  in  western, 
140ff. ;  Provincial  Congress  of, 
123,  163 ;  ecclesiastical  laws  of, 
55  note  23,  62  note  53 ;  religious 
intolerance  in,  61  f.,  78  note  43, 
107ff.  and  notes,  139f.  and  notes 
9  and  10;  toleration  in,  see  Tol- 
eration and  Liberty ;  and  Stamp 
Act,  89ff. 

Mather,  Azariah,  10,  23  note  4,  41 
note  31 

Mather,  Cotton,  37,  52  note  15,  53 
note  17,  97,  Magnolia,  9 

Mather,  Increase,  52f.  and  notes 
16  and  17,  97,  A  Disquisition 
concerning  Ecclesiastical  Coun- 
cils, 52 

Mather,  Moses,  164  note  54 

Mather,  Samuel,  187 

May,  Rev.  Mr.,  of  Haddam,  162 

Mayhew,  Jonathan,  and  Anglican 
Episcopate,  44f.,  70,  90f.  and 
notes ;  friend  of  Thomas  Hollis, 
44,  90  note  21,  92  note  25,   111, 

of    Revolutionary    leaders, 

90,  92,  169;  influence  of,  vii,  9, 
44,  91  note  23,  92  and  note  28 ; 
reading  of,  8,  lOf. ;  and  religious 
liberty,  69f.  and  note  19;  and 
Stamp  Act,  92  and  note  26; 
quoted,  6  note  7,  17f.,  23  note  4, 
34  notes  9  and  10,  36  note  20,  45, 
70  note  19,  82f.  and  note  4,  87; 
Unlimited  Submission  and  Non- 
Resistance  to  the  Higher  Powers, 
44f. 

Meacham,  Joseph,  63  note  55 

Methodists,  122  note  1 

Mills,  Jedediah,  63  note  55 

Milton,  John,  8,  10  note  16,  11,  44, 
67,  80 

Montesquieu,  8,  llf.,  95 

Moody,  Amos,  184 

Moody,  Samuel,  49  note  4,  52f.  and 
note  17,  63  note  55 

Morehead,  John,  116 

Morrill,  Isaac,  86 

Morrill,  Moses,  125  note  11,  131 
note  36,  187 

Morse,  Ebenezer,  132  note  43,  159 
note  22 

Moss,  Joseph,  30,  39 

Murray,  John,  126,  164,  187 


218 


Index 


Nature,  law  of,  15ff.,  18  note  27, 
22  and  note  3,  26f.,  29  and  note 
22,  32f.,  37,  46,  S3,  69,  73  note 
28,  76,  118  and  note  40,  119  note 

42,  170,   176f.,   181,  a  part 

of  God's  law,  15,  17f.,  22  and 
note  3,  26,  29  note  22,  35,  53,  66, 

77,  107,  168,  see  Rights;  light 
of,  19,  22,  25  f.,  29  and  note  22, 
37  note  25,  52f . ;  state  of,  28,  48, 

115,   138,  176,  180,  colonies 

in,  101  and  note  54,  105,  109  note 
12,  115  and  note  29,  129,  136, 
138,  141  f.,  148,  150ff.,  179 

Neal,  Daniel,  8.  11 
Newel,  Samuel,  189 
New   Hampshire,   ix   note,  3  note 
2,  5  note  6,  32,  55  note  23,  75, 

78,  127,  134f.,  140,  147ff.,  153, 
156,  162f.,  173f.,  179,  Appendix 
B;  constitution  of,  147ff.,  180; 
constitutional  convention  of, 
150ff.,  180;  Fourth  Provincial 
Congress  of,  148,  183ff. ;  Grants, 
revolt  of,  147ff.,  179;  ecclesi- 
astical law  of,  55  note  23 ; 
Gazette,  164 

New   Haven,    association    of,    60; 

consociation   of,   72;   county  of, 

59 
New  Lights,  59,  61ff.  and  note  55, 

68,  71   note  22,  75   note  33,  88 

note   17,   102,   103  note  62,   114, 

147 
New  London,  county  of,  63,   103 ; 

Resolves,   103  note  66;   Gazette, 

99f.  and  note  51 
Newspapers,  and  clergy,  see  Clergy 
Newton,  Roger,  159 

Oakes,  Urian,  50,  162 

Old  Lights,  59,  62,  63  note  55,  71, 

86 
Oliver,  Peter,  98,  113,  116  note  21, 

120  note  1,  155  f. 
Osgood,  David,  128  note  25 
Otis,  James,  90  and  note  21,  92,  98 

and  note  46,  155,  169 

Page,  John,  184 

Paine,  Elisha,  63  note  55,  147 

Paine,   Solomon,  63  note   55,   57f. 

and  note  33,  79  and  note  46 
Paine,  Thomas,  9,  131  note  38,  142, 

157 
Pamphlets,  6,  9,  11,  68,  100f.,  108f., 

120,   141 ;  ecclesiastical,  28f.  and 


note  19,  29  note  24,  52  f.,  65  ff., 
71ff.,  91f. ;  political,  9  and  note 
14,  28f.  and  note  19,  45,  49,  65ff., 
91  f.,  100f.,  117,  123,  141 

Parker,  Benjamin,  159  note  23 

Parkman,  Ebenezer,  llf.,  95,  146 

Parliament,  54,  64  note  58,  93,  106, 
109,  118,  120,  126,  177f. 

Parsons,  David,  132  note  43,  159 
and  note  23 

Parsons,  Jonathan,  59  note  38,  63 
note  55 

Patten,  William,  96ff.  and  note  41 

Payson,  Phillips,  128  note  24,  163, 
187 

Pemberton,  Ebenezer,  17  note  21, 
22,  37,  49,  53  note  17;  Election 
Sermon  of,  1710,  174f. 

People,  and  election  sermons,  6  and 
note  7,  limitations  upon,  7,  26,  28, 
35 f.  and  note  20,  39,  45,  48,  68, 
174ff. ;  power  of,  in  government, 
26ff.,  31,  33f.,  45,  66f.,  114,  119 
and  note  43,  127,  137,  142,  144,  169, 
177,  180,  see  Government;  rights 
and  liberties  of,  23ff.,  30  note  22, 
32,  39  f.  and  note  28,  44,  47,  50, 
52,  56,  82f.,  97,  102,  112,  143f., 
160,  167,  175,  180,  see  Constitu- 
tion and  Rights 

People  the  best  Governors,  The, 
152 

Perrin,  John  Paul,  8 

Peter,  H,  51  note  10 

Peters,  Col.  John,  158 

Peters,  Samuel,  158 

Pike,  James,  165,  184 

Pitkin,  Governor,  103  note  62 

Pitkin,  Timothy,  189 

Pittsfield,  140,  144,  165 

Plato,  7,  65  note  2 

Plymouth,  5,  50  note  9,  124 

Political  theory,  analogy  between, 
and  church  government,  20  note 

29,   22ff.,  29,   68,   168,  and 

theology,  viii,  7,  18f.,  22ff.,  29 
note  22,  35,  46,  53f.,  110  note  15, 
126f.,  182 ;  influence  of  ecclesi- 
astical controversy  upon,  viii, 
chapters  V  and  VI,  169;  sources 
of,  7ff.,  22,  33,  45,  65,  see  Bible 

Pomeroy,  Benjamin,  as  New  Light, 
59  note  38,  61  note  48,  63  note 
55,  65  note  3,  148  note  39;  in 
Revolution,  131  note  36,  162  note 
35 

Potter,  Elam,  128  note  25 


Index 


219 


Powers,    Peter,    125   note    11,    162 

note  35 
Pownall,    Governor,    112   notes    18 

and  19,  113  note  22 
Presbyterians,    viiif.,    ix    note,    13 
note  2,  59  note  42,  62,  122  note 
1 ;  and  church  covenant,  19  note 
29,  110  and  note  14;  see  Clergy 
Prince,  Nathan,  53  note  17 
Prince,  Thomas,  63  note  55 
Property,  24  note  6,  37ft.,  40,  43, 
46ff.,  60  note  47,  66,  67  note  6, 
71  f.,  77,  80  note  47,  85  and  note 

11,  87f.  and  note  16,  98  note  47, 
127f.,  154  note  1,  172,  174ff.,  181 ; 
right  to,  defined,  48,  66,  127 

Puffendorf,  Samuel,  8,  10,  24  note 

6,  30,  42,  171  note  1 
Putnam,  Israel,  103,  161 

Quakers,  55  note  23,  59  note  42 
Quincy,  J.,  Jr.,  9 

Rand,  William,  69 

Rapin,  Paul,  8,  10,  24  note  6,  30,  42 

Rathbun,  Valentine,  137,  144ff.,  187 

Reason,  18  note  27,  22,  24,  27,  29 
and  note  22,  33,  43,  49,  54,  66, 
176f.,  181;  law  of,  76;  see 
Nature 

Resistance,  right  of,  viii,  7,  37, 
42f.  and  note  33,  45  and  note  44, 
47,  57,  65f.,  82,  87  note  16,  90, 
92,  95,  102,  103  note  66,  106  and 
note  2,  113,  114  note  26,  118f. 
and  note  43,  123,  126,  129  and 
note  29,  160,  169f.,  171  and  note 
1,  181 ;  see  Government  and 
Rights 

Revolution,  American,  see  Clergy ; 
of  1688,  25,  45,  83,  112 

Rhode  Island,  viii,  51,  59  note  42, 
118 

Rights,  of  Americans,  118,  181;  of 
Christians,  see  Liberty;  of  col- 
onists, 178,  see  Charter ;  consti- 
tutional, 50,  64f.,  68,  72,  80,  93, 
95,  106L,  136  139,  170;  of  Eng- 
lishmen, 5,  65,  67  note  6,  79,  82, 
84,  88,  96,  100,  168,  176  note  1, 
178;  inviolable,  23,  29  note  22, 
35,  87  note  16,  138,  177;  of  man, 

12.  19,  28f.  and  note  22,  109,  129, 
178;  natural,  viii,  7,  15f.  and 
note  15,  23,  28ff.  and  note  22,  35, 
39  note  28,  40,  45  note  44,  47f. 
and  note  1,  50,  54,  60  and  note 


47,  64,  66f.(  69,  72,  78  and  note 
43,  82f.,  84f.,  87f.  and  note  16, 
95,  100,  102,  104  and  note,  106f., 
115,  119,  127f.,  136ff.,  150'f.,  168, 

172,  175,  180,  and  freedom 

of  conscience,  50ff.,  54,  67,  69, 
76f.,   78f.   and   note   43,   82,    96, 

108,  see  Liberty,  a  part  of 

constitution,  35,  see  Constitution 
and  Nature,  law  of;  of  people, 
see  People ;  of  property,  see 
Property;  reserved,  28,  44,  47ff., 
85,  119  and  note  42,  109  note  12, 
127,  138 ;  of  resistance,  see  Re- 
sistance; unalienable,  50,  54f. 
and  note  21,  65,  67  and  note  9, 
69f.,  74,  76,  78  and  note  43,  79f., 
82f.,  93,  96,  104  note  69,  105ff. 
and  note  2,  119,  126 f.,  136,  143 ff., 
177f.,  180f. 

Robbins,  Philemon,  61  note  48,  63 
note  55,  102 

Roberts,  Joseph,  187 

Roby,  Joseph,  187 

Rogers,  Daniel,  78  note  43,  95  note 
38 

Ross,  Robert,  133 

Rowland,  David,  165,  178 

Rulers,  choice  of,  20f.,  26f.,  34 
note  10,  90  note  20,  106  note  2, 
114,  119  note  43;  duties  of,  29 
note  22,  32f.,  41,  44,  45  note  44, 
174f. ;  knowledge  required  of, 
35ff.  and  note  18,  39  note  28,  43, 
49  and  note  6 ;  limitations  upon, 
7,  23,  35  f.,  39  note  28,  42f.,  47, 

56,  by  constitution  and  law, 

24  note  8,  26,  35ff.  and  notes  18 
and  20,  39f.  and  note  28,  43,  45, 

47,  67f.,  72f.,  I74ff.,  181, by 

God,  24  note  8,  27,  34f.,  37ft.  and 

note  28,  48,  54,  67f.,  79,  174, 

by  the  people,  90  note  20,  106,  114, 
see  People;  power  of,  21,  26, 
32ff.,  40,  50,   119,   143,  169,  174, 

from   God,   34ff.   and  note 

10,  174;  theories  concerning, 
chapter  IV ;  see  also  Magis- 
trates, Government,  and  Law 

Rutherford,   Samuel,  52 

Salter,   Richard,  106 
Saltonstall,  Governor,  41,  55 
Salus  populi  suprema   lex,   10,   27 

note  17 
Sanford,    David,   96   note    39,    145 

note  28,  165,  187 


220 


Index 


Sanger,  Zedekiah,   187 

Saybrook  Platform,  ix  note,  41, 
73  note  28,  74  note  32,  78 ;  adop- 
tion of,  as  law,  55  and  note  22; 
abrogated,  80  note  47;  and  Yale 
College,  71 

Seabury,  Dr.,  129  note  28 

Searle,  Jonathan,  184 

Seneca,  7,  10,  65  note  2 

Separates,  3  note  2,  36  note  19,  59, 
62f.,  63  note  55,  75,  77,  79  note 
46,  80  and  note  47,  147 

Sermons,  4ff.,  anniversary,  124; 
artillery,  5,  13  note  1,  107,  113 
note  22;  on  Boston  Massacre, 
112f. ;  convention,  5,  13  note  1, 
98  note  46 ;  on  covenants,  20 ; 
on  divine  constitution,  19 ;  doc- 
trinal, 4,  6f . ;  on  ecclesiastical 
government,  50ff. ;  election,  3 
note  1,  5f.  and  notes  6  and  7,  9, 

11,  13  note  1,  36,  41  note  32,  49, 
68  note  13,  84,  98  note  46,  105, 
124  note  10,  134;  Fast-Day,  101  f., 
123 ;  on  French  and  Indian  War, 
86ff. ;  on  government,  6,  11,  26, 
50,  see  Sermons,  quoted;  on 
home  manufactures,  I54f.  and 
note  1 ;  influence  of,  viif.,  6  and 
note  7,  58,  92,  98  note  46, 104, 106, 
107  note  7,  113  and  notes,  119 
note  43,  120ff.,  123  note  7,  124 
note  10;  on  liberty,  68,  85f.,  92 
note  26,  107  note  7,  109,  125  note 

12,  133  and  note  48;  on  natural 
and  constitutional  rights,  50,  95, 
see  Sermons,  quoted ;  on  New 
England,  107f.,  124f . ;  political, 
vii,  4,  6  and  note  7,  9,  123ff.,  129, 
133,  171f.,  see  Clergy;  to  recruit 
soldiers  or  at  musters,  125ff. ;  on 
religious  freedom,  54f.,  68ff., 
107f. ;  on  right  of  resistance,  114 
note  26,  117,  160,  see  Sermons, 
quoted,  and  Resistance ;  on  Stamp 
Act,  90,  92,  and  note  26,  96  and 
note  40,  97ff.,  102  note  60,  177ff.; 
quoted  at  some  length,  Daven- 
port's   of    1669,    26,    John 

Buckley's     of     1713,    38f.,    

John  Barnard's  of  1734,  40,  175, 

of   1738,   54f.,   Jared 

Eliot's  of   1738,   42f.,    176,  

Ebenezer  Pemberton's  of  1710, 
49,  174f., — Jonathan  Mayhew's 
of  1754,  87, — James  Cogswell's 
of    1757,    87    note    16,— Stephen 


Johnson's  of  1765,  101f., — Sam- 
uel Cooke's  of  1770,  114, — Isaac 
Skillman's  of  1773,  117ff.,— 
Jonas    Clark's    of    1778,    137ff., 

of     1781,     180f.—  Charles 

Chauncey's  of  1747,  176, — David 
Rowland's  of  1766,  178,— Gad 
Hitchcock's  of  1774,  181,— Sam- 
uel West's  of  1776,  181— John 
Lathrop's  of  1774,  181,— Elisha 
Fish's  of  1775,  182 

Sewall,  Joseph,  63  note  55,  108 
note  10 

Sherwood,  Samuel,  9  note  11,  124 
note  11,  125,  129  notes  27  and  28 

Shute,  Daniel,  106,  107  note  7,  139 
note  10,  188 

Skillman,  Isaac,  117ff. ;  An  Or- 
ation Upon  the  Beauties  of  Lib- 
erty, Or  the  Essential  Rights  of 
the  Americans,  117f.  and  note  37 

Slavery,  83  note  4,  85ff.,  89,  97  and 
note  42,  100f.,  115  note  29,  122, 
125,  128,  177;  negro,  119  note 
42,  128  and  note  25 

Smith,  Cotton  Mather,  102,  125 
note  11,  130,  162  note  35 

Smith,  Hezekiah,  109,  122  note  3, 
139,   161f. 

Smith,  Thomas,  63  note  55 

Smith,  William,  10  note  16 

Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the 
Gospel,  9,  45,  70,  91 

Solemn  League  and  Covenant, 
155f. 

Somers,  Lord  John,  8  and  note  9, 
llf. 

Sons  of  Liberty,  64  note  58,  93, 
110  note  14,  155 

Spinning  bees,   154f.  and  notes 

Stamp  Act,  12,  89ff.,  95,  97ff., 
lOOff.,  102  note  60,  105,  I77ff. 

Stearnes,  Josiah,  165L  184 

Stevens,  Benjamin,  32 

Stiles,  Ezra,  ix  note,  9  note  11, 
64  note  58,  100  note  51,  102  note 
60,  110  note  14,  120,  128  note  24, 
130,  165;  influence  of,  9,  70,  98 
note  47;  quoted  17  note  21,  84, 
88;  reading  of,  11 ;  and  religious 
liberty,  69f. ;  and  slave  trade, 
128  note  25 ;  Discourse  on  Chris- 
tian Union,  ix  note,  8 ;  influence 
of,  70,  84 

Stiles,  Isaac,  63  note  55 

Stillman,  Samuel,  96  note  40,  109, 


Index 


221 


139  note  10 
Stoddard,  Anthony,  63  note  55 
Stoddard,  Major  Israel,  160 
Stoddard,  Samuel,  32,  40  note  29, 

53  note  17 
Stone,  Samuel,  50 
Stuarts,  11  note  25,  83 f.,  97 f.,  106, 

113,  118 
Sullivan,  James,   125  note  11,   135 

note  36,  156 
Sydney,  Algernon,  8,  10f.,  29  note 

22,  44,  65,  80,  90,  96,   100  note 

51,  169 
Symmes,  William,  188 
Synod,    27,    55,    91 ;     attempt    to 

found,  in  Massachusetts,  28,  30, 

49  and  note  4,  52ff. 

Taxes,  28,  32,  40,  47f.  and  note 
3,  69,  80ff.,  85  and  notes  10  and 
11,  95ff.,  104,  119,  139  note  9, 
140,  144,  148f.,  171,  177f.;  for 
support  of  church  and  clergy, 
55  note  23,  59  note  42,  62  note 
53,  75ff.,  80  note  47,  82  and  note 
2,  108ff.,  139f.,  145  note  28,  147 

Taylor,  Nathaniel,  165 

Thacher,  Peter,  of  Attleborough, 
31  note  36,  135f.,  137,  188 

Thacher,  Peter,  of  Maiden,  129 
note  27,  130  note  31,  132f.  and 
note  48,  136f.,  145f.,  163f.  and 
note  61 ;  on  committees,  etc., 
188;  influence  of,  124  note  10; 
quoted,  132f. ;  reading  of,  11 
note    25 ;     sermon     on     Boston 

Massacre,    124  note    10,  at 

Watertown,  1776,  125  note  12, 
130  note  31 

Thacher,  Peter,  of  Middleborough, 
63  note  55 

Thacher,  Thomas,   188 

Thucydides,  7,  25 

Thurston,  Benjamin,  184 

Tillotson,  John,  8  and  note  8,  10 
note  16 

Todd,  Jonathan,  on  church  govern- 
ment, 73  note  27,  74  note  30; 
Election  Sermon  of,  1749,  68 
note  13;  as  New  Light,  61  note 
48,  63  note  55 ;  in  Revolution, 
162 

Toleration,  religious,  7,  27f.,  36f., 
58f.  and  note  42,  110,  139f.,  see 
Liberty 

Tories,  116,  130,  143,  157ff.,  161, 
170,  178f. 


Townshend  Acts,  106f. 

Treadwell,  John,  188 

Trumbull,    Benjamin,   64   note   58, 

120,  128,  162  note  35 
Tucker,  John,  108  note  10 
Turner,     Charles,     188 ;     Election 

Sermon    of,    1773,    11,    119   and 

note  43,  128  note  23 
Tyranny,   31,    34    note    9,   36    and 

note  21,  47,  51  note  10,  54,  71, 

73 f.   and  notes,  83,   86,  88   note 

17,  89,  129,  175,  177,  181 
Tyrant,  27,  45,  68  note  13,  69,  87, 

93  note  30,  118,  143,  179,  181 

Upsham,  Timothy,  184 

Vermont,  5,  32,  149,  153 
Voltaire,  8,  10 

Vox  populi,   vox  Dei,   11,    15,   29 
note  22 

Walker,  Timothy,  184 
Walker,  Timothy,  Jr.,  184 
Warburton,    William,   8   and    note 

9,  10 

Warren  Association,  109 
Washington,   George,  88,   156  note 

10,  161,  172f. 

Watts,  Isaac,  8  and  note  9,  65  note 

2 
Weare,  Meshech,  150 
Webster,  Samuel,  129  note  27,  185 
Weld,  Habijah,  137,  188 
Welles,  Noah,  98  note  47,  102 
Welstead,  William,  30  note  26 
Wentworth,    Governor,  of   N.   H., 

148 
West,    Samuel,    of   Dartmouth,   96 
note  39,   129  note  27,   145,   165, 
171  note  1 ;  on  committees,  etc., 

188;  influence  of,  145,  over 

John  Hancock,  96  note  39;  Elec- 
tion  Sermon  of,   1776,   127,   131, 
181 
West,  Samuel,  of  Needham,  189 
Wheeler,  Joseph,  125  note  13 
Wheelock,  Eleazar,  86,  88  note  17, 
131  note  40,  185 ;  and  Dartmouth 
College,  148ff. ;  as  New  Light,  59 
note   38,    63    note    55,    148;    and 
revolt  of  New  Hampshire  Grants, 
148ff. ;   in  Revolution,    166;   and 
Tories,  158 
Whitaker,  Nathaniel,  113  note  20, 
158  note  18 


222 


Index 


Whitby,  Daniel,  8  and  note  9,  10, 

43  note  35 
White,  Ebenezer,  63  note  55 
White,  John,  49  note  4,  52,  53  note 

17,  63  note  55 
Whitefield,    George,    56ff.,    61,   63 
notes  55  and  56,  61,  65,  78  and 
note  43,  88  note  17,  91  note  24; 
teachings  of,  57f. 
Whitman,  Elnathan,  63  note  55 
Whitman,  Samuel,  23  note  4 
Whitney,  Aaron,  123  note  7 
Whitney,     Peter,     of     Northboro, 
128  note  23,  129  note  27,  131  and 
note  36;   influence  of,  123  note 
7,  131  note  36 ;  quoted,  128  note 
23;  reading  of,  11 
Whitney,  Peter,  of  Petersham,  132 

note  43,  159  note  23 
Whittelsey,  Samuel,  41  note  31,  63 

note  55 
Wigglesworth,    Edward,    53    note 

17,  61,  63  note  55 
Wilkins,  Dr.,  129  note  28 
Willard,  Joseph,  137,  163,  189 
Williams,  Abraham,  68  note  13 
Williams,  Eleazar,  41 
Williams,  Eliphalet,  8,  106f. 
Williams,    Elisha,    31,    32   note    9, 
65ff.,  138  note  39,  176;  The  Es- 
sential Rights  and  Liberties   of 
Protestants,   a   Seasonable   Plea, 
65ff.  and  note  3,  176f. 
Williams,    Col.    Israel,    159f.    and 

note  26 
Williams,  Roger,  27,  51  note  12 


Williams,  Samuel,   132  note  41 

Williams,  Solomon,  15  note  13,  22 
note  3,  29  note  22,  41  note  31, 
63  note  55,  125  note  12 

Williams,  William,  64  note  58 

Williams,  Col.  William,  160 

Winchester,   Elhanan,   189 

Windham,  63,  102,  103  note  66, 
147;  association  of,  63;  county 
of,  10  note  14,  63,  102f.,  148  note 
39 

Wingate,  Paine,  185 

Wise,  Jeremiah,  35  note  18,  39 
note  28 

Wise,  John,  24  note  7,  28ff.  and 
notes,  38f.,  47ff.  and  note  4,  66, 
110  note  15;  influence  of,  9,  30 
and  note  24,  110  note  15;  oppo- 
sition of,  to  Synod,  28ff.  and 
notes,  52  and  note  15 ;  on  social 
compact,  28  note  20,  30;  The 
Churches  Quarrel  Espoused,  52 
and  note  15 ;  Vindication  of  the 
Government  in  New  England 
Churches,  28ff.  and  note  20,  52 
note  15,  53,  66 

Wolcott,  R.,  73  note  27,  74  note  32 

Woodman,  Samuel,  185 

Woodward,  Bezeleel,  150,  152  and 
note  59 

Woodward,  John,  175  note  1 

Worthington,  William,  60  note  47, 
63  note  55 

Yale  College,  3,  11  note  24,  55, 
60f.,  64  note  56,  71,  99,  129  note 
28 


University  of 
Connecticut 

Libraries 


